November 6, 2018
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 37
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
It is my
pleasure to welcome yet two more new Pages to this House of Assembly this
afternoon. To my right – your left, I guess – I have with me Tamsyn Russell and
Katelyn Galway.
Tamsyn
is from St. John's and is studying political science at Memorial University, and
Katelyn is from Harbour Grace and is studying French at Memorial University.
Welcome
to both of you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Bienvenue, tout le monde!
In the
public gallery, I would like to welcome the Mayor of Lawn, Mr. John Strang, and
I'm looking for them. I don't see them.
Yeah,
Mr. Strang, thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
And I'm also looking for a
nice group of folks from MADD Canada who are here.
There
she is, okay, hello. I'd like to welcome Patricia Hynes-Coates, the President of
MADD Canada, Terry Coates, Amanda Hynes, Anthony Hynes and Sharon Cobb, and
Sharon you're with MADD Avalon.
Thank
you, you're joining us here this afternoon for a Ministerial Statement.
Great
welcome to you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
Today for Members' statements
we will hear from the Members from the Districts of Ferryland, Humber - Bay of
Islands, Bonavista and Mount Pearl - Southlands.
The hon.
the Member for the District of Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand
in this hon. House today to recognize a constituent who is an entrepreneur and
business owner, Jill Curran. On October 25, Jill was awarded the Entrepreneurial
Excellence Award at the 21st annual Newfoundland and Labrador Organization of
Women Entrepreneurs.
The
award recognizes the entrepreneurship of an individual who has owned and been in
operating control of a business for at least 10 years as of March 31, 2018. This
award also recognizes the significant impact on the economy of a region.
Jill,
whose success is an inspiration for other women in business, opened Lighthouse
Picnics 15 years ago in the historic Town of Ferryland, and now employs over 12
people during the season. Seven years later, she opened the business Maxxim
Vacations which has become a leading tour operators business. Lighthouse Picnics
is operated out of a 130-year-old lighthouse in Ferryland, while Maxxim
Vacations is located here in St. John's.
Jill's
success has been significant and far reaching, not only on the Southern Shore,
but in profiling what we have to offer in our entire province.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask the Members of this House to join me in congratulating Jill on
receiving the 2018 Entrepreneurial Excellence Award, and making a major
contribution to the tourism industry in our great province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Humber - Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this
hon. House today to recognize a great volunteer in my district. This past
summer, George Sheppard of Curling received the Sovereign's Medal for
Volunteers.
This
medal, awarded by the Governor General of Canada, recognizes individuals who
have made an exceptional contribution to their community through their
dedication to volunteer work.
When
George returned to Corner Brook 30 years ago after serving with the RCMP in
Regina, he helped organize the first RCMP charity golf tournament. He decided
that the money raised should go to the Children's Wish Foundation. That first
tournament raised $450 and has grown tremendously over the past 30 years, with
last year's tournament raising over $15,000, giving the total raised to date
over $300,000.
In
addition to the tournament, George also does his part selling tickets,
collecting recyclables for cash, helping out during the annual Children's Wish
telethon and sits on the committee with his partner in crime Jack Pennell, that
helps make wishes come true.
To quote
George, “That's what it's all about; looking after the young ones.”
I ask
all Members to join me in congratulating George on receiving this prestigious
award and thank him for his continued service to his community.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Bonavista.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
With
Remembrance Day upon us, there are many events held to honour our veterans. That
was the case on October 26, when dozens of veterans received a prayer shawl from
Lieutenant-Governor Judy Foote and Prayer Shawl Chairperson Vi Parsons at a
special ceremony held at Heritage United Church in Musgravetown.
The
Prayer Shawl Ministry of Heritage United Church is a group of 25 ladies from the
church and community who meet regularly on Wednesdays to share in fellowship,
worship God, and knit or crochet shawls with a prayer attached. Since 2006,
hundreds of shawls and other knitted items have been presented to those who are
in need or to anyone who needs the comfort of knowing that someone cares.
Earlier
this year, the group decided that it would recognize local veterans in
Musgravetown and surrounding communities, thus the Honour our Veterans ceremony
was planned. Veterans, their families and special guests packed Heritage United,
where service and sacrifice were honoured. Afterwards, fellowship was shared at
an afternoon tea reception.
Mr.
Speaker, to the women to the prayer shawl group I'd like to extend a naval
expression for a job well done: Bravo Zulu!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Mr. Speaker, it is my
privilege to recognize an amazing constituent of mine who has made a significant
difference in the lives of persons living with disabilities.
Craig
Reid has been a tireless advocate for many years and a force to be reckoned with
when it comes to issues around access and inclusion and the concept of universal
design in the built environment. He is not only passionate about making
government, business and communities aware of these issues, but has a proven
record of influencing them to initiate change.
Craig is
well known to government officials and has acted as a watchdog whenever he's
found evidence of the province not following its own accessibility rules.
One area
where he has had a very positive impact is with the English School District.
Thanks to his efforts, the district funded an accessible pilot project to ensure
they were meeting accessibility policies in schools throughout the Avalon
Peninsula which resulted in many improvements.
It was
also his persistence that led to enhanced blue-zone parking at the Confederation
Building, the Health Sciences Centre, St. Clare's Hospital and the St. John's
Arts and Culture Centre. He was also the primary catalyst behind the CBC
Newfoundland and Labrador series, Access
Denied, which explored mobility issues, accessible workplaces and many other
related topics.
This
past August, Craig was recognized for all his efforts by the Coalition of
Persons with Disabilities who awarded him the Linda Wilansky Individual Advocacy
Award for 2018.
I ask
all hon. Members to join me in recognizing this amazing volunteer.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to
rise today to recognize the Project Red Ribbon campaign. In its 31stt
year, Project Red Ribbon is Mothers Against Drunk Driving's longest running, and
probably most well-known, public awareness campaign.
Losing a
loved one due to impaired driving is particularly devastating because of how
needless and unnecessary it is. Each year, almost 1,500 Canadians are killed and
more than 63,000 are injured in impairment-related crashes.
Mr.
Speaker, these types of incidents are preventable.
Never
drive impaired, or with an impaired driver. If you plan on drinking, arrange for
a designated driver or call a cab and, if you suspect someone is driving
impaired, call 911.
I would
also like to remind all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that it's not just
alcohol that impairs. Illegal drugs, cannabis, prescription or over-the-counter
medication, and even fatigue, can impact one's ability to safely operate a
motorized vehicle.
This
province has some of the strongest impaired driving laws in the country. Mr.
Speaker, thanks to the support of MADD and all the Members of this House, we
have made significant changes to the
Highway Traffic Act, including stronger penalties for impaired drivers.
I
commend the efforts of Mothers Against Drunk Driving and encourage everyone to
participate in this important campaign.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for the District of Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for an advance copy of her statement. Mr. Speaker, we in the
Official Opposition strongly support the Project Red Ribbon campaign and stand
with Mothers Against Drunk Driving in promoting the very important work they do.
Impaired
driving takes lives and while there has been significant effort to reduce it,
Mr. Speaker, impaired driving continues to be a serious problem and there's much
more work to be done. Continued education and awareness campaigns such as
Project Red Ribbon play a vital role in this regard.
Mr.
Speaker, road safety is a shared responsibility and we must all do our part. We,
too, want to thank MADD for all the work it has done and continues to do in
raising awareness about the importance of always driving sober. We, too,
encourage everyone to support this very important campaign.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for the District of St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I, too,
thank the minister for the advance copy. I join in thanking Mothers Against
Drunk Driving for the annual effort to raise awareness of the damage caused by
impaired driving. Detecting impairment is vital for law enforcement and yet
government still has no reliable roadside detection method for cannabis as it
does with alcohol. For the safety of everyone in our province, I hope this issue
can be addressed soon with the province talking to the federal government.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
today to recognize a noteworthy achievement by the Labrador-Grenfell Health
Authority.
In July
2018, the Labrador West Health Centre became the first health care facility in
Atlantic Canada to receive the World Health Organization and UNICEF's
Baby-Friendly Designation.
The
Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative was launched in 1991, and is a worldwide
effort to implement best practices to support breastfeeding. Today, there are
more than 150 participating countries.
Congratulations to everyone who helped achieve this designation, including the
staff of Labrador-Grenfell Health, members of the Baby-Friendly Council of
Newfoundland and Labrador and the Regional Baby-Friendly Initiative Working
Group.
Through
your work, you are helping new parents make informed decisions about infant
feeding and ensuring that families are supported in these decisions.
This
initiative complements our commitment in
The Way Forward to increase our province's breastfeeding initiation rate by
7 per cent by 2025.
We have
also provided the Baby-Friendly Council with $25,000 to develop toolkits to help
municipalities create breastfeeding-friendly spaces, policies and practices.
These toolkits will be available this fall.
We also
supported the recent Breastfeeding Research Symposium – I was pleased to attend
and bring greetings on behalf of government – here in St. John's, which brought
together researchers, practitioners and policy makers to discuss ways to
increase breastfeeding rates in this province.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in applauding Labrador-Grenfell Health
and the Baby-Friendly Council for their commitment to supporting families in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'd also
like to thank the minister for providing an advance copy of her statement. I
join her in commending the Labrador-Grenfell Health Authority and the Labrador
West Health Centre in particular for becoming the very first health care
facility in Atlantic Canada to receive the World Health Organization and
UNICEF's Baby-Friendly Designation. Congratulations as well to members of the
Baby-Friendly Council of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Regional
Baby-Friendly Initiative Working Group.
The
World Health Organization recognizes that breastfeeding is the normal way of
providing young infants with the nutrients they need for healthy growth and
development. Virtually all mothers can breastfeed, provided they have accurate
information and the support of their family, the health care system and society
at large.
Colostrum, the yellowish, sticky breast milk produced at the end of pregnancy is
recommended by the World Health Organization as the perfect food for the
newborn, and feeding should be initiated within the first hour after birth.
Exclusive breastfeeding is recommended up to six months of age with continued
breastfeeding, along with appropriate complementary foods, up to two years of
age or beyond.
We need
to continue to educate people to accept breastfeeding – whether at home in
private or in public social settings – as absolutely normal, convenient and
healthy.
Once
again, we all commend them on this significant achievement.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I thank
the minister for the statement. An important determinant of good health is
nutrition and a key measure of nutrition is breastfeeding. Studies show
breastfeeding reduces health costs in the first year of life, and I'm glad the
Baby-Friendly Council is working with Eastern Health to study this in our own
province.
I
commend the council and health centre along with the minister and my colleague
for their hard work getting our breastfeeding rates up and I look forward to
seeing the toolkit.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
statements by ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, if breastfeeding
reduces cost in the health care system, then that's certainly an additional
reason to be very much in favour of that.
My first
question is for the hon. Premier. Over the last three years, from 2015, the
Liberal government has increased spending.
I ask
the hon. Premier: Having regard to the financial update today, how do you expect
to find $442 million in savings in four years?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
One
group we will not be reaching out to will be the Leader of the Opposition, since
– if you look at the history of the record, it was as a result of the
administration, the group that he now leads, that has gotten us into this
spending issue where we are.
What
we've been able to do is maintain the expenditures of this province, Mr.
Speaker, keeping in mind that we are actually in a very volatile economy. So the
layoffs that the Leader of the Opposition would be – he would be promoting,
which is what we've heard from him and his Members in recent weeks. So his
layoffs would therefore have further impacts on the economy.
So the
approach we've been taking is to partner with the industry sectors, partner with
our labour groups to navigate our way through this. The economic indicators in
our province right now, I will tell you, have much more improved since they were
in 2015.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Thanks, Mr. Speaker.
The
Minister of Finance – Premier, said today that he was sowing the seeds of
diversification.
I ask
the Premier: Are these cannabis seeds or acorns, and where is the additional
revenue from these seeds of which the minister spoke?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Speaking of seeds, Mr.
Speaker, one of the things we've been able to do through
The Way Forward is to promote the
agriculture industry, which back in the 1930s, this was a province that was
self-sufficient in food; where in the '90s and into the last 10 or 15 years, and
with the group that you now lead, that reduced to nearly just 10 per cent of our
population.
So we
recognize significant opportunities. We've highlighted those in our Way Forward,
which is a growth in sustainability for the future of Newfoundland and Labrador.
We are working with many industry sectors, including the community sector – some
of the best volunteers we have in our province – to help guide our way through
partnerships, even with other provinces, Mr. Speaker, to help this province,
which is rich in natural resources, to get the future of this province back on
track.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
I appreciate the seed
reference might draw the hon. Premier into musings about agriculture, and we all
anticipate the advent of edible cannabis soon.
When the
Minister of Finance took office, he promised legislation to reduce spending in
agencies, boards and commissions. The minister has backed away from this.
I ask
the minister: Where are the savings from the ABCs which have been promised?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
First of
all, I'll start off by saying that many of the agencies, boards and commissions
that were put in place by the Members opposite, we've already reduced a number
of the agencies, boards and commissions put in place.
The
second item, I'll say to the Member opposite, he's asking where the legislation
is. I'll say stay tuned, because we've only just started this legislative
session and most of the time it's been tied up dealing with other issues, as you
know, but you will see the legislation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
I thank the minister and
assure him we will stay tuned; although, the picture on the screen is getting a
bit snowy three years into his mandate.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CROSBIE:
The minister trumpeted the
success of oil today; however, he says that the province is not relying on oil
revenues. How can he say this, considering deficit reduction is due solely to
the increase in oil revenues?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of
the Opposition says the picture on the screen is snowy. I say it's a downright
storm, a storm left by the uncertainty, the debt that your colleagues, that
you're sitting next to, left this province in; an unprecedented debt level of an
estimated $2.7 billion in deficit. Over $1 billion more than your colleagues,
your Minister of Finance, your partners that you're sitting with, projected.
That was a huge task to deal with.
We've
been able to reduce the deficit by $2 billion in just three years, Mr. Speaker,
without cutting major services, without having a drastic effect on services. I'd
say that's something to be proud of.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
I thank the minister, and I'd
ask him when he intends to take ownership of the problems he's just put his
finger on but I'd probably get a rhetorical answer.
I'd like
to change topics. For the Premier, we have documents that show the lobbyist on
the Canopy deal, Mr. Jeffrey Ryan, registered as a lobbyist on the exact same
day that the numbered company was created.
Does
this seem like a coincidence, or does it arouse suspicion in your mind?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
First of all, Mr. Speaker, in
the preamble the Leader of the Opposition talked about taking ownership. I would
suggest that the Leader of the Opposition should also accept the responsibility
for where you left this province, you and your team that you are now sitting
with.
We are
taking ownership of where we are, and we're making a big difference. That is
what The Way Forward is all about, I
say to the Leader of the Opposition.
To the
question that he asked about this Jeff Ryan, if the lobbyist registry is
working, that's the reason why the registry is in place. Simply, the fact that
you actually know who the individual is shows that the registry that we put in
place is working. I would encourage you to go look at that registry. You would
see the person sitting to your right is actually also registered as a lobbyist
on that registry.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Leader of the Official Opposition.
Order,
please!
MR. CROSBIE:
I believe his lobbying career
is not nearly so illustrious as Mr. Ryan's.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CROSBIE:
And there's reason for that.
Ted
Lomond is a form Liberal Party executive member and now the deputy minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation. Documents obtained through an ATIPP
request show that on the day following the creation of the numbered company and
the registration of the lobbyist, the deputy minister emailed his team
instructing them to start drafting the contract with Canopy.
Is the
timing of this email also a coincidence?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
executive team that's at the Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and
Innovation and the team that I have working in the department do their proper
due diligence when they deal with particular files, when you're dealing with a
publicly-traded company such as Canopy. This was something that we wanted to do
in terms of being able to attract a world leading, cannabis production facility
here, secure supply with the legalization of cannabis, and we did that.
It's
very important that when you look at, Mr. Ryan in particular, he is an in-house
consultant. He is an employee of the Canopy Growth Corporation and will be
acting in that role and capacity.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, let's deal with
some facts.
So the
financial arrangements are these: $8.74 million for shares; $10 million
interest-free construction loan; the annual lease payments at $4.99 million over
a five-year period, for a total of $25 million; adding up to $44 million, less
the cost of the land at $2.7 million. A net total of $41 million.
I ask
the minister, or the Premier: Is Canopy really just doing a pass-through of the
$40 million of taxpayer money to a numbered company whose shareholders have
Liberal lobbyists, but whose identities remain unknown?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Speaker, the answer is
no. Canopy Growth Corporation is a publicly traded company that has
shareholders. All of their shareholders are anybody that could be buying shares
in Canopy Growth Corporation. I, myself, certainly would not have shares as a
minister.
What I
will say is that we have a contract with Canopy Growth Corporation that allows
them to recoup up to $40 million in reduced remittances for eligible cost.
Anything that is not deemed eligible, they would not be able to recoup that
cost.
So,
there is process, there is adequate protections in our contract to be able to
ensure that any amount or any dollar that is reduced in terms of remittances is
adequately accounted for through this process.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, I'd say to the
hon. minister that having just done the math, we now know how his government
came up with the $40-million taxpayer gift.
I would
ask the Premier. Did you meet with Jeffery Ryan, the lobbyist?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of
the Official Opposition certainly loses credibility when he continues to make up
numbers and put numbers out there publicly that are completely inaccurate.
What has
been stated publicly is that Canopy Growth Corporation will invest far more than
$40 million in their capital expenditure. In order to get a reduced remittance,
they have to be able to make sales here in Newfoundland and Labrador and it has
to be based on eligible cost. Anything that is not deemed eligible, they will
not get that recoupment.
What we
are getting in Newfoundland and Labrador is a supply agreement; it's not costing
the taxpayers any money. There's no upfront grant. There is no cash in this
situation that is being provided. Every dollar that Canopy Growth Corporation
expends in this province, our province gets even more.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Will the minister tell the
House if he directed his deputy minister, Ted Lomond, to make this deal happen?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
When it
comes to any type of deals that we do in our province, we're certainly committed
to making sure that we do good deals here in Newfoundland and Labrador on behalf
of the people of the province. I can certainly list off a number of deals that
were done in the past by the former administration.
One
thing that we've seen recently with, in particular, the Biome deal is that
you're seeing $54,000 a year average salaries in rural Newfoundland and
Labrador. We did a deal when it comes to Canada Fluorspar that is seeing 3,000
person-years of employment; S&P Data we did a repayable loan to them and $500
per employee that's going to create 500 jobs. Hundreds of people have already
started this process of being employed there and that's going to create $131
million in economic activity.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Last
week, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board said in this House
he was going to try and find out, or do an investigation, into who the
shareholders are of the numbered company that's leasing land to Canopy Growth.
I ask
the minister to give an update on that investigation, and if it's determined who
actually owns and who are the names in that company.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What I
will say is that when we had done a deal with Canopy Growth Corporation, as I've
said before, that they went into an agreement with the Newfoundland and Labrador
Liquor Corporation and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and they
created a numbered company which has representatives from their corporation.
They did
so to create this company here in Newfoundland and Labrador so that the province
could get additional taxation or other benefits associated with having such a
company created. That is the approach that has been taken.
When it
comes to any outside dealings outside of that contract, beyond December 2017, we
do not dictate, as a government, where or who companies get and do business
arrangements. There are all sorts of arrangements that a company may get into,
and I'll certainly further answer his question –
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Mr. Speaker, there's a Canopy
numbered company and there's another numbered company that's leasing property to
Canopy. That's the question was asked to the Minister of Finance and President
of Treasury Board last week. He stood here and said he'd do an investigation,
he'd find the information out and he'd bring it to the House.
So I'm
asking the Minister of Finance: What investigation did you do, and did you find
out who the names are and, if you did, could you please tell us in the House?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to
anybody that's doing business here in Newfoundland and Labrador, like for
example S&P Data – I know that the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi doesn't
appreciate 500 jobs being created here in the city of St. John's, as she said so
yesterday, but we did not dictate to them to set up at the Village Mall.
We did
not dictate to Biome Grow Corporation that they would set up on the West Coast
of this province. It was actually the president of the local company who had an
application in with Health Canada since 2014, who was seeking investors, and
they said we want to bring this to St. John's, and he said absolutely no.
When it
comes to Canopy Growth Corporation, they said they would set up a company on the
northeast Avalon. They are doing that. Anything outside of that has no
involvement with the contract and is not part of the government.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Opposition House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Mr. Speaker, I can only
assume that the minister's not going to follow up on what he suggested he would
do last week in the House here.
In the
state of Colorado where cannabis was legalized in January of 2014, criminal
activity has been introduced by investments in production facilities and
licences have resulted in legally grown cannabis being shipped out for illegal
market sale by the criminal element.
While
certainly we have no evidence of that activity here in this province, this is
significant to understand.
I ask
the minister: If you do not investigate who the beneficiary is along the chain
of investors, how do you ensure the protection of the public investment and
security of the public in general?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Speaker, we have a
contract with Canopy Growth Corporation, the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor
Corporation, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the numbered
company that was created by Canopy Growth.
We have
a contract with them and it involves them supplying 8,000 kilograms of cannabis
annually with us. And it also prescribes a requirement that we would provide up
to $40 million of their eligible expenses. Anything that is not deemed eligible,
we have an audit process. We have prescribed protections in place that would
allow us that if there is some form of overpayment we can stop remittances at
any time. We could also relinquish retail licenses, if necessary.
So when
it comes to the chain of command, we have appropriate process in our contract to
protect taxpayers. This is a good deal for the people of the province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Opposition House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
So the minister confirms
there are no checks done in that particular circumstance that we're seeing arise
in Colorado.
Mr.
Speaker, it's common knowledge that Canopy Growth had trouble meeting the supply
needs for the first several weeks of legalization. The contract with Canopy
Growth, I understand, indicates that 50 per cent of construction of the facility
would be completed by October 1, 2018.
I ask
the minister: What percentage of completion have they reported for construction?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
One
thing that I can say that here in Newfoundland and Labrador is that Canopy
Growth has been supplying us with a significant amount of product to the
licensed producers and retailers here. It's quite significant. You see in other
provinces like New Brunswick they have had to close 10 of their 20 stores.
Quebec is operating just three days a week.
When it
comes to the contract with Canopy Growth Corporation, there are milestones that
are in it, and we have a requirement of which they would be open by October of
2019.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Opposition House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday the minister indicated there were penalties in place in regard to the
contract with Canopy Growth. Could he outline the penalties and if any have been
executed related to delivery, supply or other elements of the agreement?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Speaker, as I've said
previously that we have a contract with Canopy Growth Corporation to supply
cannabis, 8,000 kilograms for a year – that's annually, for the first two years
with an option to renew.
Cannabis
has only been legal for just three weeks here in this particular province. We're
not in a position to be able to go to a company and say, you have not delivered
at this point in time. We do have appropriate mechanisms in our contract over
time to look at and see if they delivered the measurables and the milestones
that are in place. We have adequate protections. There is no taxpayer money
going into this particular contract. Should there be an overpayment of
remittances at any time, there's an ability to recoup or stop remittances, and
there's an ability to shut down or relinquish retail licenses. So the taxpayers
of this province are protected.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Opposition House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
He's not
going to tell us the details of the penalty, so I'll ask him this.
If the
actual supplier, Canopy, delivers in the agreement what they said they would,
they delivered in the twelfth month of the year, would that still meet the
requirements of the contract, even though for 11 months they may make no
deliveries?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Speaker, it seems like
the Member opposite and the previous administration were very heavily involved
in business dealings and how business could or could not work. It seems like
they wanted to dictate where a company would set up, dictate who they would deal
with and who they would operate. That is not our approach.
Our
approach to doing business is that we are open for business, we are creating
jobs. And we are seeing it having success, not just in the cannabis industry of
attracting two companies right now with hopefully more to come and the jobs that
have already been created, but look at all the other things that we've done in
mining and attracting major investment, over $16 billion, and how we're
correcting the fiscal mess that was left by the administration on the other
side.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Public Accounts Committee met with the Auditor General this morning to discuss
the findings of the audit of the Eastern School District.
Can the
minister outline what action the department has taken to ensure taxpayers' money
is being spent where it is most needed to support the education system?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'd like
to thank the Member opposite for the question. Certainly, the Auditor General's
report was not something that any of us on this side of the House will be proud
of, and I'm sure on the other side of the House either, Mr. Speaker.
Some
time back in last year my department felt that there might have been some issues
with what was happening in the school district, the English School District, and
requested that the Auditor General would go in and check on what was happening.
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, we realized the audit was done between 2011 and
2016, which certainly bring some concern for us as a government.
So, Mr.
Speaker, we are certainly working with that and we'll ensure that there are
efficiencies and ways (inaudible) to do that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask
the minister: Do you have confidence that the school district understands the
seriousness of these findings and the importance of implementing proper internal
controls and oversite to protect the monies of the citizens of this province and
to ensuring it's being spent where it's needed in our education system?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
number one priority for the English School District should be for programming.
Unfortunately, when some of these situations happen – totally unacceptable. As
minister responsible, Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Member opposite that I have
had some very serious discussions with the English School District and with the
board, as a matter of fact, to ensure that these types of things are not
repeated.
Too
often we stand there and have to defend these things. They are not things that
we need to defend. These are totally unacceptable. Some of them could be even
fraudulent, and we are making sure that the total investigation goes into that
to ensure we do have the necessary funding for programming in our school
district.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do
agree with the minister, these are very serious and are indeed, and already been
proven, that they are fraudulent.
Has the
department put mechanisms in place to monitor the board and ensure that they are
taking the findings of the Auditor General seriously and are implementing the
needed procedures and proper oversight in a timely manner?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I can
assure the Member opposite that there were some issues with regard to making
sure all the checks and balances were in place, and we are working with the
English School District and with the board to ensure that we do have adequate
checks and balances in place going forward, Mr. Speaker.
What
happened is totally unacceptable and should not, and should not, and hopefully
will not happen again. And we will work within the resources we have, Mr.
Speaker, and we'll work with the school board to ensure that these checks and
balances are in place to make sure these things do not happen in the future.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Will the
minister instruct the board to do a full audit of other services within the
board to ensure that the proper controls and oversights are in place and working
throughout the entire board?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We're
already ahead of that. Because actually when the Auditor General came in and we
talked about some of the issues that we're facing with the English School
District, and we know – she more focused on the Avalon Peninsula and we asked at
that time – and, of course, her schedule's pretty busy as well – to make sure we
have really a good, broad perspective of what could and potentially happened in
the other areas of the province.
As you
know, Mr. Speaker, there were four school boards at the time and they collapsed
into one school board under the former administration. So they had to work
through some of these issues when they tried to consolidate all of that. So
there were some issues. We'd like to know what's happening in Central and
Western as well.
So, Mr.
Speaker, yes, we want to make sure that we have measures in place to ensure that
these things do not happen and will not happen.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
board recently approved a $2 million plan to address the problems identified by
the Auditor General and will be seeking funds from the department.
Will the
minister support this request and provide the monies to the board?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
For the
Member opposite, you should realize and understand that there is a budgetary
process that we go through. Part of that is each of our departments will look at
– and we will look at our budgets that we have and we'll deal with these issues.
One of
the things that there are, not necessarily one or two or three or do something
in silos – there are opportunities to look at synergies and opportunities within
the Finance Department, and some other departments, to work with to ensure that
we have the proper checks and balances in place and that the English School
Board will have the resources that are necessary for them to ensure they're
doing the things when it comes to a financial perspective going forward to have
these tools in place, and we will work with them to ensure that we do have that,
Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island for a very quick question, please.
MR. BRAZIL:
Has the minister had dialogue
with the elected school board to outline concerns around this particular issue?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development for a quick response, please.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yes, I
do have regular discussions with the chair of the board.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
While
government gives away $95 million to among the largest producers of recreational
cannabis in the world, many of our people, especially seniors, are suffering
from severe dental pain and infections but cannot afford to see a dentist
because this government cut the Adult Dental Program. Doctors around the
province are ringing alarm bells about the suffering and danger their patients
are in, the extraordinary use of antibiotics and the dangers of addictions with
pain meds.
I ask
the Premier: What is he going to do to help these people who are showing up in
our emergency departments in desperation?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
Adult Dental Program in this province is on a par with at least five other
jurisdictions in Canada. We have actually increased, between budget '17 and '18,
the amount of money within that program by roughly 20 per cent. Given our fiscal
constraints, we were very pleased to be able to do that.
We
service somewhere in excess of 50,000 clients in the course of the last year. We
look to find ways to improve it, bearing in mind the issues of fiscal
sustainability and the problems we inherited from the previous government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, so the minister
is telling me that the race to the bottom is what he's looking at.
Last
week, The Gathering Place opened a free dental clinic with services provided by
volunteer dentists and hygienists. Already, 1,500 people are lined up
desperately wanting to see a dentist. Many haven't seen one in years and have
very complicated dental issues. The Gathering Place cannot meet this dental
emergency situation alone.
So I ask
the Premier: Will he bring back the Adult Dental Program so people can get the
health care that they need?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Mr. Speaker, thank you very
much.
The
Gathering Place serves an invaluable function. It deals with a very vulnerable
population – a significant number of who don't actually have MCP cards for
reasons that we can't manage.
We have,
as a government, quadrupled funding to the Gathering Place over recent years.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HAGGIE:
So I think we are doing what
we can, given the situation in which we find ourselves, with not unlimited
funds, and a constrained environment to dig ourselves out of the hole that we
inherited three years ago.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
We're
hearing from families around the province about the situation of loved ones in
long-term care who are experiencing repeated assaults, falls, delays in hygiene
care, lack of assistance at mealtime and being forced to stay in bed. They say
the problem is lack of adequate staff.
I ask
the Minister of Health and Community Services: Is he taking this situation
seriously?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The care
of our seniors is of paramount importance to this department. These are the
people who built this province. I will not stand by when there are any cases of
neglect. There are mechanisms in place through the RHAs, through the new patient
safety and quality assurance act that we put in place through the adult
protection program for those individuals who have concerns about their loved
ones, and I would encourage them to use those. If there's anybody else out there
who has a specific case of neglect, and you haven't brought it to me, you should
have.
From the point of view of staffing, we have the single
largest number of RNs and LPNs in the country on a per capita basis. We are the
leading province in that regard. We have added nurse practitioners, and seen
huge improvements in the last year alone.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Mr. Speaker.
People
are trying use the system, and it's not working for them. Yesterday, a group
submitted a petition to this House, and offered many more examples of neglect
and poor care and threats to the health and well-being of their loved ones. We
have an urgent situation now because staffing levels are not meeting the needs
of the people.
So I'm
asking the minister: Will he conduct an immediate review of the staffing needs
in long-term care, and end this suffering of residents? Whatever he says about
statistics, it's not working.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Once
again, any individual or family member who's concerned about the welfare of
their loved one in a long-term care facility, or anywhere in this province,
should bring that to the attention of the health authority, or the appropriate
authorities or my department if they fail to get satisfaction. I will not
tolerate that kind of activity.
In terms
of staffing, we have an opportunity now, going forward with the new long-term
care facilities, which we have managed to find funding for and partnerships to
enable us to build at a time again when we have had very little fiscal
maneuverability, we are able to put new long-term care facilities in place. This
is an opportunity for us to make sure that our staffing levels and staffing
ratios align with best practices, and I was speaking with the RNU literally two
hours ago.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The time
for Oral Questions has ended.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Tabling of
Documents
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
My apologies for my
hesitation.
Last
week when questioning the minister responsible for The Rooms, I made reference
to a document. The document is called The
Rooms Corporation of Newfoundland and Labrador, Request for Proposals, Agency of
Record (AOR), issue date January 25, 2018, and it is the conflict of
interest guidelines.
Might I
table this document?
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
MR. CROSBIE:
I gather I just leave it here
for pickup.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
I require consent of the
House to table that document.
Do I
have consent?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay, document is tabled,
thank you.
Further
tabling of documents?
Notices
of Motion.
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
At a
time when the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are dealing with high levels
of taxation, increased unemployment rates, increased food bank usage, increased
bankruptcies and many are forced to choose between food, heat and medications,
Newfoundland Power and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro are continuing to seek
numerous power rate increases through the Public Utilities Board. Once the
Muskrat Falls Project comes online, these rates are predicted to further
increase significantly to unmanageable levels for the average citizen of our
province. While government has indicated they are working with Nalcor to
mitigate these rates, they have provided no detailed plan as to how they intend
to do so.
Therefore, we petition the House of Assembly as follows: To urge the Government
of Newfoundland and Labrador to publicly provide all the potential options for
rate mitigation, develop a comprehensive, detailed plan to deal with current and
impending power rate increases. This plan is to be provided to the public as
soon as possible to allow for scrutiny, feedback and potential suggestions for
improvement.
Mr.
Speaker, I have over 200 signatures here today. These are mainly – well,
actually they're from all over: Middle Arm, Burlington, Baie Verte, Burin –
different parts of the province – La Scie. I presented this numerous times. I
will continue to do so because people have asked me to do so. This is certainly
not being critical of the current administration in terms of where we find
ourselves with the project. That's not what people are saying. It's not about
casting blame on anybody. It's talking about where we are, the reality of where
we stand today and the concern that people have about how they're going to pay
for the light bills if something isn't done.
The
Premier and minister have indicated that they do intend on implementing
rate-mitigation policies and so on to get it to a manageable level. All is being
asked here by people is that simply just saying that in itself does not ease
people's minds. They want to see action. They want to see exactly a detailed
plan as to how we are going to arrive at that place. That's what they're asking
the government to do. I don't think that's unreasonable. I don't think even the
Premier or government would say it's unreasonable.
I know
it's a matter of timing. They say they're working on it. I hope they are and,
hopefully, sooner rather than later this is going to happen so that people can
have some piece of mind.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Minister of Natural Resources for a response, please.
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I've
been listening intently to the hon. Member who has tabled a number of these
petitions in the House and I can say this government certainly recognizes that
people are concerned about their electricity rates. We, too, are concerned about
their electricity rates, and that's why we're working with the Public Utilities
Board to find a path forward based on the incoming Muskrat Falls Project.
We all
know the difficulties that we inherited around that. The Member opposite asked
for a response as soon as possible, and we are working on one, Mr. Speaker. As
the people of the province know, in 2021 is when we anticipate having to start
to pay for the Muskrat Falls Project, and certainly there will be a detailed
plan before that time.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, workplace health and safety currently requires that where more than one
but less than 15 workers are engaged in one shift, an employer shall ensure that
one of the workers holds a valid emergency first aid certificate, unless an
officer directs that a higher certificate is necessary.
We, the
undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to specify workplace health and safety to include a
mental health first aid certificate in this requirement.
Mr.
Speaker, in today's society it is theorized that we are under about 35 per cent
more stressors that effect our mental health than that of our ancestors in
previous decades, and particularly in our province where we're now faced with
escalating economic challenges, our mental health is definitely at risk.
We,
right now, have the highest rate of bankruptcy in our history. We have the
highest rate of self-harm in the country, of all provinces. Mental health is a
recognized and emerging important factor of overall workplace health.
Therefore, I am fully supportive of this petition. It's not a big added cost to
the employer by any means, and I would think that it would far counteract any
negative business costs that are caused by mental health issues in the
workplace.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Today I
rise again to present this petition – the federal government's current policy
regulation linking harvest quotas to vessel size.
Many
harvesters own fishing vessels of larger sizes, but because of the federal
regulations, harvesters are restricted to using smaller vessels, which often put
their crews in danger.
We, the
undersigned, call upon
the House of Assembly to urge
the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to make representation to the
federal government to encourage them to change the vessel length restrictions
policy to ensure the safety of our fish harvesters.
Mr.
Speaker, I bring this again today, and I've been bringing it for the last number
of years, actually, in the House, and it's very important. This year I have not
heard of any casualties at sea because of smaller vessels, but in the past we've
heard it several, several times.
What's
happening in our crab fishery today, it's probably even more so. I know in my
own district – I'm not sure in other districts, but I know in my own area that
the inshore fleet this year had a very difficult time in catching their crab. In
fact, there were a lot of quotas that were left in the water and not even caught
because there was no crab available.
That's
an added cost to people that have two or three different vessel sizes. It'd be
easier for them to be able to use the larger vessels to be able to fish the
inshore quotas, and that way the costs wouldn't be so much on the harvesters.
It's important in safety. Anybody out on the water knows that the changes in
temperature, the climate can just change so fast with wind increasing, stuff
like that.
We're
putting our harvesters at risk by using smaller vessels. I just call on the
minister to talk to the federal government about changing these restrictions.
There was a reason why these restrictions were brought in in the first place: to
ensure that the inshore harvesters had a piece of the pie when it came to
harvesting crab, shrimp and anything at mid-shore. But most people today are
fishing both and they're being forced to use smaller vessels, even when they're
only nine or 10 miles offshore, where it can become very rough.
I just
ask the minister to make representation to the federal government to change this
regulation.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm glad
to rise today to present a petition on behalf of constituents in my district
dealing with the management plan described for Mistaken Point Ecological
Reserve, which is a World Heritage Site.
The
management plan described the partnership between Mistaken Point Cape Race
Heritage Inc. to assist with the interpretation site in Portugal Cove South,
which is the gateway for visitors. Mistaken Point Cape Race Heritage administers
and operates the site for Mistaken Point, Cape Race and the wireless
interpretation centre at Cape Race as well.
Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the
undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to support the Mistaken Point UNESCO management plan
and meet all the responsibilities to maintain and grow the Mistaken Point world
heritage UNESCO site.
Mr.
Speaker, this actual recognition was in July of 2016 and was a long process
going through with the department and officials, with the help of the federal
government and Parks Canada in terms of putting the actual, what's called a
dossier, together in terms of the documentation of why this site should get the
world heritage recognition, and that was acknowledged in July of 2016.
With
that was a management plan that was to be executed by the provincial government
and as well a local group on the ground, as I referenced, Portugal Cove South
and Cape Race Heritage. With that collectively as a partnership to look at the
administration – because that's the gateway; it's a physical facility there in
Portugal Cove South and the community and the volunteers work to administer and
expose the world to Mistaken Point. And that's supposed to be a partnership.
There
are specific requirements within that plan that needs to be met by UNESCO to
make sure that you retain that status. One of the challenges is certainly a
fiscal challenge. We've seen no input in terms of new dollars from this
government to assist with that facility or to assist with the overall management
and administration of it.
Even
today, we're seeing the community groups out selling tickets on various things
to try and raise money for operation, which is really not good enough when you
think about a World Heritage Site and how unique those are around the world, and
the tremendous opportunity from an economic point of view that it can bring to
the Southern Avalon. It's not just about that region; it's about the whole
province and the recognition of this world site.
So we
certainly call on government to step up the responsibility, get engaged with
this, look into the management plan and what the requirements are and work
collectively with those great volunteers on the ground so we can maximize the
opportunity for the Mistaken Point World Heritage Site, not for the region but
certainly for the whole province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
petitions?
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I call
Orders of the Day.
MR. SPEAKER:
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I call from the
Order Paper Motion 9. I move, pursuant to Standing Order 11(1), that this House
not adjourn at 5:30 p.m., today, Tuesday, November 6.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Order 7, first reading of Bill 35.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board for leave to
introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety and
Compensation Act, Bill 35, and I further move that the said bill be now read a
first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the hon. the Minister of Service NL, or Government House Leader, shall have
leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety
and Compensation Act, Bill 35, and that the said bill be now read a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Service NL to introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend The
Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act,” carried. (Bill 35)
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act. (Bill 35)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the said bill be read a second time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 35 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Natural Resources for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An
Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act No. 2, Bill 36,
and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill
entitled, An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act No.
2, Bill 36, and that the said bill be now read a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Service NL to introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend The
Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act No. 2,” carried. (Bill 36)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation No. 2. (Bill 36)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the bill be read a second time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 36 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I call from the
Order Paper, Motion 2.
MR. SPEAKER:
If I may and before the
Premier speaks, I would like to address the House of Assembly with some remarks
before we commence.
This is
a very unique and challenging time for this Legislature; therefore, I would ask
all Members in the context of debate on the reports from the Commissioner for
Legislative Standards to please do the following: Keep their remarks courteous
and respectful; ensure language used in debate is not unparliamentary; and that
any debate ultimately respects and promotes the dignity of this hon. House and
its Members.
I ask
for the co-operation of all Members in this manner.
The hon.
the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Member for Terra Nova, the following resolution:
WHEREAS
in accordance with subsection 38(1) of the
House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, the
Commissioner for Legislative Standards has submitted a report respecting his
opinion on a matter referred to him under the authority of subsection 36(1) of
that Act;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly concur in
The Joyce Report of August 24, 2018.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, we opened this House on October 23, rather than the scheduled November
5, to deal with the reports from the Commissioner, Bruce Chaulk, which contained
findings based on the investigation to allegations of bullying and harassment
brought forward by four Members of this House.
For the
benefit of all involved, I wanted the reports to be tabled, to be debated and
determinations made in a fair, expeditious and decisive manner. Right now, I
will not get into what has become a belaboured process, but the delay of this
debate by two weeks – but I will say that this certainly did not favour those
involved.
When
this legislation began back in May of this year, it was the only process that we
had available to us. We were in unchartered waters with this investigation. It
is now clear to me that this has to change. It has to be a much better process.
The
Commissioner did the best that he could under the current guidelines. A process
that allows for the names of those who wish to remain anonymous, to be made
public, Mr. Speaker, that's a flawed process. A process that allows reports to
be released before they are seen by this House is a flawed process. And a
process that allows for opportunities for people to make their case in the House
and in public, before the debate begins, is also a flawed process. A process
where decisions are delayed by several months is also flawed.
So I do
not hold the Commissioner responsible for these flaws. He pointed out yesterday
that much of this process is based, essentially, on the honour system, for want
of a better word. For those who made submissions – everyone, Mr. Speaker, is
expected to tell the truth. It is clear we have to consider changes that will
allow for a more controlled and certain framework.
I said
in the past, Mr. Speaker, that families are affected by this. When matters that
we fully expect to be confidential are shared with the public, for whatever
reason, it brings undue grief to the families of all parties involved. Yes, the
public has a right to know, but they would expect to be informed once the
process is complete, and certainly not to suit any personal objectives of any
one individual. A process that is not safe for people to come forward, that does
not protect them in a process, well, these processes must change.
Members
must be comfortable to come forward. Just think about it, given what has
transpired lately, how comfortable would anyone feel bringing forward an
allegation of bullying and harassment right now? A truthful answer to that
question, Mr. Speaker, alone is enough. It's enough to tell us we need to make
dramatic improvements. The handling of bullying and harassment complaints is new
for us and is also new for other provincial governments.
Unfortunately, Members have had to endure an ordeal that was never intended when
we sanctioned this process. It was sanctioned many years ago. While such an
ordeal must never be allowed to happen again, neither should people have
suffered in vain. We owe it to ourselves to come forward, to all Members of this
House and to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, to heed the painful
lessons of this experience and to use those lessons to set us on a course to
establish a new higher standard for dealing with bullying and harassment in
provincial politics. And believe me, Mr. Speaker, people are watching.
One of
the biggest lessons I have learned in this is that we need a process that
separates matters of bullying and harassment from other matters related to
legislative standards of conduct. We have to do everything we can to ensure a
new process will have the confidence and trust of all those that need it.
In
short, we need to get it right. And I make this pledge today that we will get it
right. When I say we, I mean all Members of this House. If ever there was an
issue for which we must come together and set aside party politics, this is it.
We owe that to the people of our province. We owe that to young people. We owe
that to the very young people in our province; and, in particular, we owe it to
women in our province.
We must
send a clear and unmistakable message that this House of Assembly is a safe
place for them to engage in public life. Of course, the best message that we can
send is to conduct ourselves in ways that will preclude the need to file an
harassment or bullying complaint in the first place; but, should that need
arise, Mr. Speaker, the process must be safe, respectful, impartial and
confidential.
You've
heard me say that my door is always open, but while that is true and will
continue to be true, it is not a sufficient process. A sufficient process should
be timely, it should be clear and it should be confidential. Furthermore,
rumours and innuendo do not have a part to play in a trusted process.
In the
Commissioner's opinion, many of the behaviours described in the reports fall
within the scope of behaviour that exist in a political environment. That
finding alone should make it clear we need a fundamental change in a political
culture. In my view, these behaviours should be unacceptable in any environment,
including the political one.
I see a
big difference between the cut and the thrust of debate and the vigorous defence
of one's position, but it cannot cross over into belittling and diminishing
behaviours. We must not and cannot support a culture that gives licence to the
behaviour simply because it resides in the political arena. It is this very
culture that all too often discourages people from seeking public office.
While
I'll acknowledge anyone can be affected by this issue, men and women alike, I
will not rest until women who aspire to be MHAs know that they'll be welcomed
and respected in this House. Mr. Speaker, currently less than 25 per cent of
this Assembly are women, and we need more women in this Legislature.
The
Commissioner also wrote that in his opinion the behaviours described in the
reports did not rise to the level of objectionable or offensive behaviour that
would support a finding of harassment and bullying. It is my view and firm
belief, as representatives of people of this province, we must be held to a
higher standard, and we must rise to a higher standard.
Now, I
have already stated, I personally believe that the standard must be zero
tolerance; zero tolerance for disrespect and zero tolerance for abuse. Zero
tolerance for harassment, zero tolerance for bullying in whatever form. The
higher standard must be founded on respect and decorum.
We can
disagree as passionately as we want. We can be vigorous in defence of our
positions and opinions. Even in the heat of political persuasion, we must be
respectful and ever mindful that diminishing another person to elevate one's own
position is not acceptable and will not be tolerated. Members of this House must
feel safe at work, and if the behaviour of a fellow MHA threatens that sense of
safety, there must be a recourse through the process that inspires confidence
and inspires trust.
Times
are changing, Mr. Speaker, for the better, in my view, as more and more people,
particularly women, are taking a stand against systemic injustices. We see this
happen globally, and as a result we need to do better. That means a fundamental
shift in what we consider to be acceptable behaviour towards men and women in
and outside of this House. I would argue that this culture change should extend
into the realm of social media.
Now, I realize we cannot control the voices of others.
These voices are often nasty, they're vicious, they're self-serving and often
dishonest, but we can control our own voices. We can control our own manner of
debate however vehemently we disagree on issues. By engaging in respectful
debate, however vigorous, even online, we can, at the very least, set the right
tone and lead by example. We can control our own voices.
Mr. Speaker, none of us are perfect. We are all prone
to make mistakes, but it is important to be able to recognize those mistakes.
It's important that we own up to them. It's important that we take
responsibility. It's important that we apologize if need be and commit to do better.
The Commissioner talks about introduce a restorative
justice, a model with an emphasis on rehabilitation of relationships. It is an
approach that would focus on addressing the harm of one person who has caused
another by words or actions.
However, I am not completely sure that such a model applies in all cases.
Matters of harassment and bullying inherently flow for
an imbalance of power. The offender must be
accountable and accept responsibility for those words or actions.
Acknowledgement, the hurt it's caused and can demonstrate, not just by their
words but also by their actions, a willingness to address the needs of the
person or the persons that have been hurt.
We also have to bear in mind that a restorative justice approach is only
appropriate if all feel that it's safe to take part. Only then can those who
hurt be empowered, and through that process, Mr. Speaker, the path to healing is
possible.
Then there is a matter of violations of the Code of
Conduct. The Code of Conduct violations can be very serious. While Members of
the House will decide a measure of discipline and compliance with the
Commissioner's recommendations, I have decisions to make on my own, to make with
respect at the entirety of the reports. I have no doubt that Members of this
House will weigh in with their own assessment of these violations, as well as
other matters outlined in the reports.
During these discussions that follow, there will be
likely moments of very high emotions. After all, Mr. Speaker, these are
emotional issues. Nevertheless, I ask that these discussions, and the debate to
follow, be conducted in a manner that is respectful to all Members; that we
conduct ourselves in a
manner that will rise to the level of decorum that the people of this province
so rightfully deserve.
Mr.
Speaker, we have an opportunity in the next few days to change and set the
course for making this a safer place to work. I challenge everyone in this House
today, all Members, to let that culture change begin now.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank
the hon. Premier for those eloquent and entirely appropriate words.
I do
believe, if I'm not mistaken, that we are on now – and I do wish to address my
remarks to the first of these items. I believe that's correct. So it would be
the one concerned with The Joyce Report,
August 24, 2018.
Mr.
Speaker, I would like to express, on behalf of the Official Opposition, that we
do not concur in this report, and I would like to explain why that is. It is not
that we contest the findings of fact in the report, it is that we contest the
conclusion that the facts as found do not support a recommendation to this
House, or an opinion on the part of the Commissioner, that a violation of the
Code was committed.
Specifically, I would refer to page 1, where at the bottom of the executive
summary – this is page 1 of the report before us,
The Joyce Report of August 24, 2018.
“Although there is no contravention of the Member's Code of Conduct,” – wrote
the Commissioner – “MHA Joyce acknowledged that he would refrain from using
profanity towards MHA Holloway and I would recommend that all MHAs not use
profanity towards each other in the future as such language is not an acceptable
practice for our elected officials.”
Yesterday – and with the greatest respect to the Commissioner for Legislative
Standards. Yesterday, I did ask him toward the end of my questions as to whether
he viewed the Code of Conduct as at least partly aspirational. And he said that
he did and he agreed it was at least partly aspirational.
The
importance of that concept of having an aspirational Code of Conduct is that we
are acknowledging – and I don't think this is controversial. We all acknowledge
that standards of conduct, as they exist at this moment or have existed in the
recent past, although they may be generally accepted, may not be good enough. In
the moment of decision, it is possible we may have to acknowledge that we set
ourselves a higher bar than the conduct which may have been normalized in the
past, and this is how progress occurs.
I
submit, Mr. Speaker, that we collectively should set ourselves a higher bar than
that the use of profanity towards a colleague, a fellow Member of the House of
Assembly, is acceptable. As the Commissioner himself said, this is not
acceptable. But, to fail to find a breach of the Code of Conduct in the face of
these findings is to legitimate and accept and tolerate conduct, which the
Commissioner himself has found unacceptable.
I turn
to the conclusion page, page 20 of this report. The findings, specifically, were
under Conclusions, top of page. I refer to this: “Used the word 'f…'” – I'll
just abbreviate – “with humourous intent ….”
Now, in
my submission, Mr. Speaker, whether the intent was humourous or not, it was, it
seems to me, experienced by the complainant as unwelcome, which is one of the
definitions of harassment; otherwise, he would not be complaining about it.
“Used the word 'f…' with humourous intent
when speaking to MHA Holloway, and on at least one occasion told him to 'f…
off.'”
Nobody
in this Chamber, if asked in a formal setting would say that that conduct is
acceptable. It is not; yet, the respected Commissioner has found it appropriate
not to enter a finding that there should be a sanction in relation to that.
I now
refer to the principles of the Code of Conduct that the respected Commissioner
has quoted further on, on the same page.
Principle 4: “Members will
act lawfully” – well, we expect that – “and in a manner that will withstand the
closest public scrutiny.” So that is an aspirational standard. “Neither the law
nor this code is
designed to be exhaustive and there will be occasions on which Members will find
it necessary to adopt more stringent norms of conduct” – more stringent norms of
conduct – “in order to protect the public interest and to enhance public
confidence and trust” – enhance public confidence and trust.
It goes
on in Principle 11 to state: “Members should promote and support these
principles by leadership and example.” I submit that the language and the
attitude of disrespect manifested by the hon. Member in the findings in this
report merit sanction in the form of a reprimand.
I
listened carefully to the hon. Premier's remarks and I wrote down some of the
phrases he used. He referred to even in the heat of political persuasion, the
gist of it being we must always remain respectful of persons. Well, this is not
remaining respectful of persons in the heat of political persuasion.
I agree
with the Premier, we do need a culture change. I have now, I trust, adequately
expressed the reasons that we on this side of the House have for refusing to
concur in the report.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The next
speaker.
The hon.
the Member for Terra Nova.
MR. HOLLOWAY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
certainly thank you for the opportunity to rise today and speak to this
resolution. This resolution arises from the Commissioner for Legislative
Standards investigation into allegations of workplace harassment by the Member
of Humber - Bay of Islands.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to pose questions of the
Commissioner about the process which he undertook to investigate this complaint
and other complaints brought forward by my colleagues.
While it
is clear, at least from my perspective, that the process has some flaws, it is
the process that currently governs the behaviour and the conduct of all Members
of this hon. House. When I first came forward with my complaint, I knew this
process was not a good fit for investigating and, hopefully, starting to address
workplace harassment. In fact, during my interview with the Commissioner, I made
a very similar statement.
During
the past six months, I, along with my family, my closest friends and my
colleagues have endured a great deal, because I decided the behaviour of some
must change. In 2018, Mr. Speaker, there is no tolerance for workplace
harassment and, collectively, we must all do better to ensure that it ceases to
exist or, if it does exist, that we take immediate steps to shut it down.
I would
like to be clear that workplace harassment is not an issue alone to the Liberal
caucus. It is a pervasive issue that impacts all sides of this Legislature and
legislatures across this country. In July, I was in Ottawa attending meetings
with other parliamentarians from across this country. One of the key topics for
discussion was workplace harassment, intimidation and bullying. In conversations
with fellow parliamentarians, I quickly learned that Newfoundland and Labrador
is not the only jurisdiction to rise up and demand this change. I also learned
that the country is watching what we do here, so it is important that we set the
stage to do it right.
Mr.
Speaker, not for a moment do I think that at the end of these next few days will
we have all the answers, but I am confident that we will be moving in the right
direction. So to my colleagues, who have had the courage to come forward with
your complaints, I applaud each of you. You are a part of this change, and I
look forward to continuing our work to serve the people of this province.
I wish
to express my deep gratitude to the people of the Terra Nova District who have
been steadfast behind me throughout these past few months. I have appreciated
every telephone call, email, social media message and personal visit. It is your
support that has continued to encourage me to push on and to see this through. I
would also like to express my gratitude to those of you working in the public
service who have stopped to offer words of support, a friendly handshake and
your encouragement to never give up.
Mr.
Speaker, the change we are about to see is not about me. It is not even about
other Members of this House. But it will be about the children in our schools,
the people who work in our communities and those who consider to run for public
office in the future, including women, all of whom will want a workplace that is
free from harassment, intimidation and bullying.
Before I
take my seat, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to leave you with this quote from George
Bernard Shaw who wrote: “Progress is impossible without change, and those who
cannot change their minds cannot change anything.”
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I
reluctantly stand to speak to this motion today. We've spent a lot of time,
energy and money on the issues that face us here today, and I believe I must
point out once again, as my colleague has – or the Leader of the Official
Opposition – in the executive summary of this particular resolution and report
that: “MHA Holloway also indicated that the culture of harassment and
intimidation was pervasive within the Liberal Party Caucus.”
I
believe it's important to state that once again, Mr. Speaker, that what's at
issue here is not a debate about what has been going on within the House of
Assembly within these Chambers as we do our work here, but something other than
that. I'm concerned about the process. I raised my concerns about the process
with the Commissioner for Legislative Standards yesterday about the extensive
public nature of this process as it relates both to complainants and to
respondents. I am a very reluctant participant in the continuation of this
process. I do believe that everyone who was involved has done so from the best
of intentions, trying to again work with a very, very difficult situation.
What I
find very interesting and would like to point out, in the culmination of all of
the reports together, although we are speaking specifically to this one, when we
look at the best practices in looking at mental health issues in the workplace,
when we look at the best practices in terms of determining diagnosis of PTSD –
I'm not equating what happened here as a mental issue, but when we look at what
is happening in best practices there, and then also best practices in the issue
of workplace harassment and bullying, it is not one specific issue but the
culmination of many issues, of many acts, of quiet, subversive, deliberate acts
– and one stands out that is incredibly egregious or very specifically
identifiable, but the culmination of the petty, little acts in order to
discredit, isolate, intimidate and that's what we see in the culmination of
these reports if we were to look at that.
Mr.
Speaker, that's not how this is being handled. That's not at all how this is
being handled. I am disappointed in that, but then I'm also disappointed in how
nobody has been protected in this process, either complainants or respondents.
When we look at the reprimands, I don't know how this House makes restitution to
those who have had to go through this process so publicly. I don't know how we
do that.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Humber - Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
going to rise to speak on this and to speak on the report itself. First of all,
the Leader of the Opposition made out that I'm the only person that ever used –
and the context itself it wasn't to the person; it was about an issue we
discussed and I'll explain that. I ask the Member for Cape St. Francis or the
Member for Ferryland: In our discussions, was that ever used? Do you ever use
it?
So, Mr.
Speaker, I do not think that I'm the only person here on occasion when I was
speaking – and it was about a project that I said it and I'll explain it.
So,
don't give the impression that everybody in this House are saints because we're
not. We're definitely not. And I see the Premier's comments about the flawed
process. It was flawed, absolutely, 100 per cent flawed. Imagine, going in court
and never being a witness, and you're going to vote and say I'm bad? Never had
the opportunity, not once, to speak to Bruce Chaulk – not once.
Mr.
Speaker, I'll even say to the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune, as
everybody talking about me being out in the public: How many times did I give
you a heads-up when capital works, or sit down and let you go through the list?
How many times did I tell you what projects was going to be approved? I ask the
Member for Cape St. Francis: How many times I do that to you? How many times are
you in my office going through what you needed in the district, and we worked
out a deal? I ask the Member for Ferryland: How many times did that happen?
So you
get this idea that you don't deal with people. Ask anybody across the aisle, one
person that never sat down and went through everything you needed in the
district – just one, stand up, anybody in this House. It just never happened.
Because all this gets out in the public, you're this big animal, that happened,
but it just never happened.
So the
Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune, if I never sat down with you and went
through the projects with you, any time there's firefighting equipment, stand up
and say it now. The Member for Cape St. Francis, stand up and say it if I never
did it, if I'm saying something wrong. The Member for Ferryland, any Member
across, it just never happened.
I got to
say for the Member for Terra Nova – the other two were different, but I was
disappointed because I worked well with you. I worked hard in your district. I
used to drive in just so I could come back from meetings in your district. Like
this here shocked me, yours shocked me, but the other two I'll explain later,
but it did. I can honestly say it did, and I know the times I stood up in the
House of Assembly and defended you, and your wife used to send notes, thank
Eddie. I mean, you knew that. You used to read them out to all the boys here. It
actually shocked me. Then when you come over to the dinner that we were having,
you were going to stay at my house. A month earlier, you bought a ticket – you
still owes me 20 bucks for it, by the way – but you got the email and you
purchased the ticket.
I say it
to the Premier, talk about the respondents, the people that were accused. There
was a meeting with myself and Greg Mercer, and I have to bring this up. A
meeting with myself and Greg Mercer and the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's,
and when you review all the copies, that night the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape
La Hune, a CBC reporter contacted her, that night, and there was only three
people knew: myself, the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's and Greg Mercer.
Premier,
when an allegation was made against me, which I didn't even know at the time, on
April 25, three people knew, Sir: you, Joy Buckle and the Member for Placentia -
St. Mary's. It was brought up on the House floor that afternoon with only three
people knowing, and it was in the media – CBC. And how am I supposed to feel?
Dismissed out of Cabinet; gone – across Canada: bullying.
You have
to point out here, Mr. Speaker, there wasn't one case of bullying or harassment
found in these reports – not one. So all these things about the bullying and
harassment that myself and the Member from Mount Scio – not one. And I'll just
give an example. I'll just give one example. There's a lot I can go through the
report on. I will just give one example that the Member for Terra Nova – and I
got to say that I was shocked, by the way. I really was. But anyway, that's
fine.
One
example: I called 11 times from July 14 to July 31 about the Speaker and,
apparently – which I didn't do – I was saying nasty things about the Member for
Harbour Grace – whatever the district is.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Port de Grave.
MR. JOYCE:
Harbour Grace - Port de
Grave. So I was put across Canada, and I was a bully for one of these
allegations. Guess what? There wasn't even a Cabinet shuffle until July 31, but
I had to defend that I made 11 calls to that Member's house. I wouldn't give up.
There wasn't even a Cabinet shuffle. Yet, I'm a bully. That's the kind of
allegations that's put in here. It never happened because there wasn't even a
Cabinet shuffle until July 31. Yet, I'm a bully.
And the
second one that the – apparently – and I'm sorry for bringing this up, but I
have to get the record out because I'm the type of person who can move on, but
after seven months, it's pretty hard.
The next
one was in the meeting with the pensions that I made statements to the meeting
with the pensions. I was never in the meeting with the pensions. It never
affected me. I gave 17 witnesses to say I never attended the meeting. Yet, in
the report, two of the four allegations that I was saying stuff in a pension
meeting, and you could ask the people who were involved. I was never in the
meeting, yet I was a bully for doing that.
Those
are the kind of allegations that's in this here. That's the kind of allegations
that's in it, and that's why it's so disappointing. It is so disappointing, and
I know I got a lot of calls from your towns, from mayors and all that. They were
disappointed, too.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I just
going to remind the Member to please direct your remarks to the Speaker.
Thank
you.
MR. JOYCE:
I got a lot of calls from the
Member from the District of Terra Nova – sorry about that – and I also got a lot
of calls and people were shocked because we worked so well.
Mr.
Speaker, they didn't say that I raised my voice, and I'll tell the incident. I
got no problem with it. We were sitting – I was having lunch. You came in with
the proposal for Clarenville. The Member for Terra Nova came in for a proposal
for Clarenville. I was sitting down – and I make no bones about it. I was having
lunch, and he put it on my desk, and he laughed, and I looked at it and I said,
are you serious? He said, yeah, and he laughed. I said, well, how about the rest
of the MHAs? The words were: Well, that's their problem. I said this is effing
crazy.
Do you
know what it was? I never did swear at the Member. It was the proposal that was
– do you know what it was? Out of the $10 million capital works that the
province had, looking for five for a new fire hall and town hall, and I wouldn't
do it because of the rest of the Members. I said, I can't do it. That was the
comment. It was never to him; it was never to his face. Because I'll tell you, I
had, what, 40, 50 meetings in Terra Nova; 30, 40 with the fire departments,
probably 400 or 500 people. Ask one, did I ever raise my voice. Ask one, did I
ever swear. Ask one staff, just one. It just never happened.
So this
idea that this is a big part of the culture, it's just wrong. It's just
absolutely wrong. Then – because it's out in the media and everybody is talking
about confidentiality. I note the Premier brought it up also, the part about
confidentiality.
How
would you feel if your name was out in public going across Canada? How would you
feel? How would you feel if your name was put across – first of all, when the
complaints were made to the Premier only three people knew. The Opposition knew
about it at 1:30 that afternoon, CBC announced it at 1:31 that afternoon – CBC.
Now we know there are code names involved.
How
would you feel that your name has been put out there, you're dismissed from
Cabinet, you're told you're a big bully. You're told that everything you did –
but it was two months later the complaint was ever put in – two months. You're
waiting for two months and everybody expects 90 days. There was never a
complaint put in for two months, and then you wonder – with the names that were
going back and forth and how stuff was getting leaked out. You start to put
things together when you put the reports together.
I'm not
paranoid; definitely I'm not paranoid, but I can tell you one thing, if there
was anybody putting stuff together – you believe there were people working in
tandem to put this out in the public; yet, we have a confidentiality – myself
and the Member for Mount Scio, we were put across Canada as Members released
because of bullying and harassment. And there wasn't one finding of bullying or
harassment, not one – yet, seven months of your life when you talk about
confidentiality.
Just
think about it. Just think about it, Premier. Only three people knew about that;
yet, at 1:31 the leader, Paul Davis at the time, who was involved with another
Code of Conduct case. I might say, that that was thrown out in another case that
I have the documentation for. So at 1:31 CBC announced that it was me. I didn't
even know. No, I think the Premier told me at 12 o'clock or 12:30 he said.
How many
people in this room, how many people across this province know, the initial
allegations that were brought to the Premier of the Province was I turned my
back on someone? I was in a swivel chair, I turned the seat. I walked by the
Minister of Finance's chair, I grunted, and then when I walked by I pushed aside
and I glared.
How many
people in the province know that's the initial allegation that was told to me?
How many people know that? How many people in this province know that the Member
for Placentia - St. Mary's asked for mediation and I reluctantly agreed to
mediation? How many people know that? That's the initial stuff.
Then
when it got leaked out here to the Opposition and the CBC it got bigger, and
then everything changed. Two months later, and in the report itself – I mean
that's the kind of things, Mr. Speaker, that I've been facing for seven months.
Four months I knew about people changing information back and forth, code names
–four months.
Do you
know why I didn't tell anybody across the way? I didn't want to interfere with
your caucus meetings or your Cabinet meetings, but I knew four months that three
people knew about the meeting. It was leaked over here. That night I remember
myself and Greg Mercer, April 11 that was leaked also to CBC – to the CBC, I
know because they were contacted. It's in her report. I knew about that for four
months and I wouldn't tell anyone because I didn't want to put anyone on the
spot.
How
would you feel? How would you feel? Then you're talking about the process. The
process comes up – and I'll say to the Member for Terra Nova, at any time we had
an open relationship, my office door was open. I went in your office. I went to
Terra Nova and made many announcements with you.
There's
something I got to clarify here. You were talking about that you were – I have
to say this, it's nothing against you, to the Member for Terra Nova. I have to
say that you're frozen out. I remember the time that you mentioned it. It was an
incident and I did it to everybody. I did it for you also, to the Member for
Terra Nova. Is that if there was an announcement in someone's district, I wanted
the MHA to make the announcement. I wouldn't go myself. I know there was one
down in, I think it was Stoneville. You requested to go, and I said no, let the
Member do it. He had it all planned, and that's what he did.
So when
you think you're frozen out because you don't represent the minister, I'll just
give you a good example. We were in Glovertown and we were in Clarenville,
myself and yourself, the mayors and the towns and the minister at the time, Judy
Foote. Guess what, Mr. Speaker? Guess what? The Member himself, to ensure that
he got the credit, I emceed it. He made the announcement on behalf of the
government. That's the way I operated, and I did it every MHA, every MHA.
So the
idea that you were frozen out because the Member in Stoneville was making an
announcement down there that you didn't go down and I wasn't there, it's the way
I operated. That had nothing to do with you, and you felt that way. That's just
the way I did it, and I can go across this room on many occasions where I
emceed, as a minister, I emceed the event. I actually emceed so you could get
the credit for it.
Mr.
Speaker, when you think about it – and I won't go through the rest of the report
and stuff like that, there's no need of it. But anytime, Premier, when you're
talking about the system itself, think about the people who the complaints are
made against. Think about that. Make sure in the system we're protected, because
I can tell you it happened to me. Over what? When you look through it, over
what? And I'll get into that report later – over what? All it was over was a
job, which a guy never got an interview.
I'll ask
one question – Opposition also – name any person here who never gave a minister
a resume, stand up. As I said, that is normal to hand someone resumes.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I
believe the challenge that the Member just issued to all of us, without the
ability to stand up, is inferring something quite negative to us, for those of
us who have not.
MR. SPEAKER:
I would rule that it's a
request, frankly, that's not consistent with Parliamentary procedure, and I'd
ask that we just move on.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you.
I know,
just trying to grandstand again, Mr. Speaker, that's typical.
Mr.
Speaker, and I'll get into what you said in the House of Assembly also without
any foundation about me. I'll say to the Leader of the Third Party, without any
foundation. But you see, bullied, no allegation, one about a resume dropped off
in September. This is the type – one person over there, and one person on the
Opposition, one person in the Opposition –
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I again
rise on a point of order, section –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
49.
MS. ROGERS:
– 49, the accusation that I
was grandstanding, rather than really referencing back to the sort of double
jeopardy that he has put us in by his request for those to stand who haven't
given a – and then to call that grandstanding when it really is a point of
clarification.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
At this time, I don't see a
point of order but I am watching closely.
I see it
as a disagreement between hon. Members, but again, I am watching very closely.
The hon.
the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
The Members of the Opposition
– thank you. And so, stand up. You can't, because it's normal. It's normal.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask the Member for Cape St. Francis: How many resumes did you pass
in?
MR. SPEAKER:
Again, I will remind the
Member to please direct his remarks to the Speaker.
Thank
you. That's the second warning.
MR. JOYCE:
(Inaudible) give an example.
It's not that you're going to interfere with the Public Service Commission
because it's illegal to do that, Sir. It's illegal to do that. I'll get into
that later, and how I never had a chance to respond, even the person that
applied for the position never got a chance to respond. Never even got an
opportunity to speak about it. Yet across Canada we're bullies, myself and the
Member for Mount Scio are bullies, and there wasn't one allegation of bullying
in it.
When I
see the Premier's remarks, there's no foundation for bullying, I agree. I ask
any Member opposite, any Member when I was in government, if you were getting –
how can I put it? If you were getting a rough time from anybody, who picked up
for you? Who stood up for you, even in caucus? I did.
And when
we were in Opposition, and we had government Members, I used to always say to
our Opposition: If there's someone over there weak, don't say much to him, don't
embarrass him, don't pick on him, don't embarrass him. I said that a hundred
times.
I have
no problem, if I went toe-to-toe with the Member, any of the Members, the Member
for Ferryland, because we're both capable in the House of Assembly; but if you
bring a rookie in, you don't embarrass the rookie. You just don't do it. You
just honestly don't do it, and we never ever did do that, and I always made the
point. The Members opposite, even some of the ones that made the allegations
that I'm a bully, how many times did I stand in this hon. House and defend them?
How many times did I go to their districts and support them? How many times did
I meet with town councils on their behalf and go over and above – and I know
some on Sunday afternoon, Saturday nights, Sunday nights.
So this
idea because it's made up, and then how it was made up, Mr. Premier – and this
is what got to be in this legislation. How it was made up, it was made up in the
public. It was not done privately. So I want, when I ask the Committee – and I
know the Member for Stephenville Port au Port, I asked that I be able to attend
when all this is over. I'll give you some ways on how that Committee itself and
some recommendations.
So I say
to the government that when you make up this policy, make sure it's a fair
policy for everybody – for everybody. Because I can assure you that when you get
tried in the public, when you get this idea of all the bullying and harassment
you all did, all across Canada and it takes two months to even see what you're
talking about, and when you actually get it – just imagine, I ask anybody. I ask
the Member for Burgeo - La Poile, just imagine if you were a lawyer and someone
walks in today and makes an allegation and you say okay, here's the allegation
and you're defending them; two months later they come back oh, no, no forget
that, here are the allegations now. What are the chances of saying that witness
is credible, two months later?
In the
statement that was put in, just an example, the statement that was put in by the
person who was the meeting with the Premier, as a witness to the Commissioner,
said the compost facility wasn't brought up, the swimming pool and the job
because it was never an issue. How many people across the way now is going to
say I'm a big, bad bully, but I never had one opportunity to sit down and
explain one thing that happened – not one thing.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Member's time has expired.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I just
want to make a couple of points that probably relate to all – of course, it
relates to our being here this afternoon. I want to thank the Premier and the
Leader of the Official Opposition, the Leader of our caucus for the comments
that they have made, with which I concur.
None of
us wants to be going through what we're going through. Yet, we're in a
legislative bind that we got put in. Nobody intended it to happen and I just
want to put it out to remind us how we got into it. The accountability and
integrity act is the act under which the Code of Conduct guides us and guides
the Commissioner for Legislative Standards as well with regard to the work of
that role.
When
that act was put in place by Chief Justice Green, the act said there would be a
Code of Conduct and the House of Assembly Management Commission was given the
task to create the Code of Conduct that would then come to the House of Assembly
to be approved and would become part of legislation.
The act
itself came out of the financial scandal that we'd been through. When you read
the act, remembering that, it makes so much what's in that act meaningful. Then
the Code of Conduct which the House of Assembly Management Commission put
together became a much broader Code of than just dealing with financial scandal.
It got put into the legislation with sections around how a Commissioner deals
with reports on issues that are brought to him, without anybody realizing at the
time that we could be in the situation we're in here today, and been in this
week and the past months, with everything public, people's lives out in the
public, and us having to be here today because that's how the legislation has
gotten us here. We're here because of our legislation.
My next
comment does not reflect the Privileges and Elections Committee, but I just want
to remind everybody our work has been public in the sense that we have had three
or four reports that have gone out from the Committee, and anything I'm saying
is based on those public reports. You all know that the Privileges and Elections
Committee has been working hard for months. We've said it to everybody that we
have been working hard for months listening, listening to people with expertise,
listening to Members of the House, listening to employees of the legislative
sector. Together, hopefully, with the work of the Committee and this House we
are going to change. We know we have to change what's happened. We cannot
continue, but I want to give us a sense of hope that we can do it. We can do it.
I want
to refer to something that I may be the only person in the House who remembers
this because it wasn't public. Many years ago – I've been here since 2006 –
there was an MHA who had a complaint made against that person; harassment of a
sexual nature, not sexual abuse, but a person not really knowing what was
appropriate with touching, with the use of hands, et cetera. The complaint came
from a young woman, and the only reason I know about it is that I was the only
one in the House from our party at the time. I was the leader of our party. I
know that the premier and the two leaders knew it happened. I was contacted by
the person from the caucus who was dealing with the issue. It got dealt with
privately. Those of us who needed to know knew. The person actually underwent
training, harassment training, and nobody ever knew that that happened except
those who were involved, and I would hope that that's what we're going to be
able to get ourselves back to. That having a process to deal with harassment of
any sort, that that process has to be a process that respects everybody's
privacy, and I know we can do that.
I didn't
think I was going to speak to this report, but as I sat here I realized – I just
really felt the need, as an individual, to stand and say that. Because we have
to have to hope, and we have to know we can make it better.
We have
to promise ourselves that what we're doing here this week will never, ever
happen in this kind of a setting again. That we will create a climate – because
I do think we have a culture that's not acceptable, and we do have to look at
that culture. It would be crazy for us as parliamentarians not to acknowledge
that, but we can change, and I absolutely believe that we all want to work
together to make that change.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm not
going to have a whole lot to say. I hesitate to speaking at all to some degree,
Mr. Speaker, because I have to say, in my seven years here in the House of
Assembly, this is probably the most – what's the word I'm looking for –
uncomfortable discussion, I think, that's we've been part of. I'm not going to
get into any of the details of the report because, quite frankly, I wasn't
there. I wasn't a witness. I can read the report like anybody else.
I will
say that I believe, as others have indicated, that there are definitely flaws in
the process – if I can put it that way. I think we definitely need to develop a
new process that's going to be confidential, that's going to ensure that
everybody is treated fairly, because there have been some indications – again, I
guess you could say it's hearsay because it's he said, she said and all this
stuff, but some indications that perhaps due process did not necessarily occur.
At least that's what I've heard from some people, which concerns me, I have to
be honest.
Yesterday, when we had the Commissioner for Legislative Standards here, I do
understand his hesitancy to answer certain questions. I understand the rationale
behind it, but I have to say, there were questions I had around the process that
I didn't get clear answers from the Commissioner because of him deciding that
there were certain things he wasn't going to answer for and he had his reasons
and, as I said, I understand that.
I can
speculate on some things. I can read the report, but I guess all I would say is
go back to the fact that I think we really do, and I'm sure everybody here now
is committed to putting a proper process, a proper procedure in place to replace
the one that we've gone through here. I think this public process is absolutely
horrendous, in my view. It's horrendous in terms of the negativity it casts on
this House of Assembly. It is for the Members who are the complainants, it is
for the respondents, and it is for the family members of the complainants and
the respondents.
I know
myself, through personal experience, this can be tough on one's family when your
face is out there in the media for various reasons. I've gone through that
myself for different reasons, but been there, been the centre of attention in
the media, not always positive. It depends on who you ask, I suppose. And it is
tough on your family. So I can only imagine that it is tough on the family
members of everybody involved in all of these reports.
So while
I do certainly appreciate what the Member of the Official Opposition is saying
about his concern about not concurring with the recommendation, I do get it when
he talks about a higher standard and so on. I agree in principle, but given the
fact that we do not have what I would consider a proper process in place, then I
think we have to rely on the process that we do have, trust the judgment of the
Commissioner.
Even
though I have questions, as all Members do, about some of his conclusions, how
he got there and so on, we really don't understand exactly everything that he
did, why he did it, how he came to the conclusions that he came to, and I as one
Member am not prepared to stand here and be judge, jury and executioner and so
on for my colleagues in the House of Assembly, whether I agree with their
actions or I don't.
So I
will just simply be, I guess, going along with the recommendations of the
Commissioner, who is an outside person who has looked at this, gone through the
process based on the process that he had, the legislation that guided him, and I
will have to trust his judgment on the recommendations. While I may have some
questions in my mind about some of the conclusions, how he got there, not being
there and not being part of that process, not hearing the interviews, not
getting all the information, I think it would be unfair for me to, on my own,
just render my own judgment. So I will just simply go along with what the
Commissioner's recommendations are and concur with those recommendations.
I
certainly hope we all learn from this and that we will get a better process put
in place that will spare all of us as Members, all future Members, and our
families, and our families – I cannot stress enough – our families. And everyone
in this House understands the impact on your families, to spare them all from
this public process that has to be very, very difficult on them.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Any
further speakers to the motion?
Seeing
none.
Is the
House ready for the question?
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
MR. SPEAKER:
I believe the ayes have it.
This
motion is carried.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I call from the
Order Paper, Motion 3.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Natural Resources, the following resolution:
WHEREAS
in accordance with subsection 38(1) of the
House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, the
Commissioner for Legislative Standards has submitted a report respecting his
opinion on a matter referred to him under the authority of subsection 36(1) of
that Act;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly concur in the Kirby Report
of August 24, 2018.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm just going to speak to the resolution itself in terms of how it
enters this House of Assembly and how it's different than a regular government
resolution.
There
are certain resolutions that are put forward in the House that are the policy of
governments, a government initiative, something that government of the day wants
to see happen. There are other resolutions that go into this House through other
entities. One of those entities being the Management Commission, which is a
Commission that is made up of Members from all sides of the House, from three
parties, and which essentially guide the House of Assembly in matters affecting
MHAs.
As the
Government House Leader, I am the vessel through which these resolutions travel
into the House. I have had opportunities in the past where there's been debate
in the House whereby Members have said I can't believe government is doing this,
knowing full well the difference there. So I'm just trying to ensure that the
public that watch this understands that this is a motion that comes from the
Management Commission.
Now, in
this case, basically what we're dealing with is a recommendation that has been
made by a statutory Officer of the House of Assembly, that being the
Commissioner for Legislative Standards. So people understand how that works, we
have a number of Officers who are independent of government but who answer to
the House of Assembly. That is the Commissioner for Legislative Standards,
there's the Privacy Commissioner, there's the Child and Youth Advocate and
there's the Citizens' Representative.
Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with the reports, regardless if
one agrees or disagrees with the process, and there has been a lot said to that,
one thing that cannot be said is that this was a government employee. That is
simply not factual. This is an Officer of the House that was put in place by the
MHAs sitting in this House. So, it's one thing to talk about process, it's
another thing to say that we don't like the process because it wasn't
independent of government. To say that is simply not true.
Moving
forward, we have seen cases in the past where these types of matters have ended
up in the House where there are complaints made of a breach of the Code of
Conduct by a Member. There's an investigation, a report and the report contains
findings. I've seen it on two occasions myself in this House.
The
Commissioner will usually do an investigation and lay out the facts as they find
them, whether there has been a breach of the Code of Conduct. If there is no
breach of the Code of Conduct, the recommendation in the past has been, again,
the report is tabled in the House and, as Members, we must dispose of that
report. Generally the way that has been done is if there has been no
recommendation by the Commissioner, i.e., no breach, therefore the House concurs
in the findings of the Commissioner.
If there
is a breach of a particular Code, the Commissioner makes a recommendation of
what the penalty should be – I believe it's under section 39 of the particular
act – and makes a recommendation based on their findings. In the past we have
seen that Government House Leaders, including myself as well as previous
Government House Leaders from previous administrations have moved resolutions in
this House based strictly on the recommendation made by the Commissioner and
then they are voted on.
I'm not
here right now to talk about whether the resolution should be voted 'aye' or
'nay', agree or disagree, that's up to each Member of the House to do so. What
I'm explaining, Mr. Speaker, to those that may be listening, is the method that
led to not just this resolution, but every resolution that's been entered last
night and starting debate today in this House. So I just want to lay that out
there for why we are here.
In this
particular case, the Commissioner found that there was no recommendation; such
the resolution reads that the House of Assembly concur in the report of said
date. That's where we are.
I will
take my seat now. I wanted people to understand the process that's been employed
here. I will say during all of this process that I want to thank my colleagues
on the other side, as Government House Leaders, that we've had – there's an air
of politics that hangs through all of what we do. That's inherent in the nature
of what we do. But what I will say is that we've worked together, and I've
worked with the independent Members as well, that we've worked to do our best to
ensure that this process gets in the House and gets handled.
So, I
thank them for their co-operation and that is trying because that's the nature
of the beast, but I appreciate their co-operation in dealing with this as we
move forward. The fact remains that once this is done, we continue to move on,
we continue to be colleagues, we continue to work in the Management Commission
and make decisions that are in the best interests of our constituents and
guiding this House, because the day will come when its not us sitting here,
there will be new people sitting here and we have to leave something that's
better for them.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you very much.
The hon.
the Opposition House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just
wanted to stand for a few moments and reference the motion. My hon. colleague,
the Government House Leader, referenced as well, in regard to the process. It
certainly outlines the legislation and the role of the Commissioner in terms of
doing – I should say not his or her, but the office doing the review and making
a recommendation at the conclusion of a report, or not, and then it being
referred to the Management Commission.
I think
the term in the legislation, the minister referenced, all of them being disposed
of here in this Chamber. In and of itself that means that it is this Chamber and
the Members sitting here that determine if indeed the recommendation of the
Commissioner is accepted, as well whether it is altered. That's the full
authority of this Chamber to do that, either to accept that recommendation or to
alter it.
Actually, it's not an option to do it; it's our responsibility to do it. To
render the findings, to concur with those findings and if there is a
recommendation, or even if there's not in regard to breach of the Code of
Conduct, the authority is on the Members here to deal with that, either through
the original motion or either through an amendment.
I do
concur and, certainly, echo some of the thoughts of the Government House Leader
in regard to the difficult nature of this dealing, collectively, with us as a
body and individuals that you work for, work with. We have tried to work as
House Leaders to see this this process through, and do it to the extent to fill
our obligations and, as well, to be sensitive to the various things that have
evolved in this report and is discussed here on the floor of the House.
So I
just want to make those comments, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the process that
we're going through with the motion, and the other ones that are left on the
Order Paper.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Any
further speakers?
The hon.
the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker.
I'm not
going to speak on the report itself, but a letter I wrote you today, I'm going
to read that into the record, Mr. Speaker, and I will not speak on the report.
This is
something for when the Members in this House make a decision if I should
apologize. I never had the justice that I deserve, and I wrote the Speaker
today. I wrote him before. He responded that it was an in camera meeting, but I
wrote him again today, and I just want to read this letter into the record for
when this comes up for decision – how strong I feel about this.
“Dear
Mr. Speaker:
“Yesterday at the Hearing during questioning of Mr. Bruce Chaulk, who's an
Officer of House of Assembly, he made a comment that there was no need to meet
or interview –”
MR. SPEAKER:
(Inaudible) a point of order.
Given
that what you're referencing – I do have a copy of it in my hand – does not
relate directly to the motion before us, I would suggest that it's not
appropriate, at this time, to discuss the contents of this.
MR. JOYCE:
(Inaudible) but to me, it is.
Because in the report itself, Mr. Speaker, it goes to show that, again, I was
not interviewed for any of those reports. Again, it's showing that I was never
interviewed, and this here is something that I'm pushing to get an answer for.
It do,
Sir, because it is part of my defence.
MR. SPEAKER:
I am going to rule that it
isn't relevant, given that we are debating
The Kirby Report. So I would ask if you would continue with your time to
speak to other matters of The Kirby Report.
That would be welcome in this House.
Thank
you.
MR. JOYCE:
Well, Mr. Speaker –
MR. SPEAKER:
You have to get unanimous consent of the House to table a document.
MR. JOYCE:
If I get unanimous consent,
can I table this document?
MR. SPEAKER:
Does the Member have consent
to table this document?
MR. JOYCE:
Okay.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay, thank you.
Any
further speakers to this motion, Motion 3?
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
indeed a unique situation that we're faced here in this House of Assembly today,
and, no doubt, it's trying times on everybody involved. People in the House of
Assembly, the complainants and the respondents, their families, even people in
the community, people who deal with everybody on a given day, and as was said by
some of my colleagues here, it does have an impact, even on how we perform our
duties.
We've
been spending time on this, and it's important that we do this, because at the
end of the day, for transparency, for credibility and for people to have trust
in the system that we have here, we have to have a Code of Conduct that works,
that everybody in this House understands the parameters, and that people can
feel protected by having that in play.
Mr.
Speaker, we've come a long way. There's no doubt, this is a living entity.
There's going to have to be movement towards adopting any new changes that are
necessary as we adopt and identify challenges we have in this House of Assembly
by Members, or by people outside this House of Assembly with accusations that
may be made or conduct that may be unbecoming of a Member of the House of
Assembly.
I found
myself a number of years, was perhaps the test case on how this would work and
the impact it would have. But what I gained from that was an understanding and a
responsibility that we have as elected officials to follow the conduct that's
put forward. That we all have to set the bar at an extremely high level for us
as the elected officials that people put trust in, in not only engaging society
in ensuring policies and procedures and actions are at the highest level, but
that we all also have to be accountable for.
I
violated the Code of Conduct and, rightfully so, admitted to that, and was
reprimanded by this House, and rightfully so. We need to have that
accountability here. When there's a reprimand needed, that reprimand needs to be
put in play and has to be dealt with accordingly. When it's not necessary, when
the evidence doesn't note there's any reprimand needed, then, again, accordingly
we need to be able to do that, too, so that people can move on beyond that.
So I
just wanted to point out that we have a responsibility here, and I know we all
accept that now and I know the discussion over the last number of months,
because this just shouldn't happen, with the Commissioner coming in yesterday or
the debate we're going to have over the next number of days. This happened over
the last number of months, particularly, when a new, I guess, responsibility of
what the Code of Conduct should deal with and should be responsible for.
We've
all had challenges around the process, and was it the most efficient one and are
there ways of improving it? Of course there are. Have we put into play some
mechanisms to start to improve that? Sure we have, but we need to immediately
deal with what we have at play right now and we need to, again, entrust that
this House of Assembly has an ability to protect its Members; it has a
responsibility to ensure the general public can trust and have confidence in how
we operate within the House of Assembly. More particularly, it has to have that
it sets the template and the bar to ensure any work environment, the general
public and any other institution we have in this province, must adhere to what
is important in ensuring we have a safe, engaging work environment.
So I
just wanted to note that particularly, but I wanted to talk to, you know, this
particular motion that's put forward in that, while the process sometimes might
be considered flawed, the evidence at the end of the day and the discussion,
while it may perceive that things weren't as fluent as they could have been, at
the end of the day, if there's no intent or there's no deliberate violation,
then we have to find what we find. And we find, in this particular case, that's
as the motion being put forward there, that there was no Code of Conduct that
was violated here. As such, we need to adopt that, have that and move on so that
all involved can move on and that we would deal with other things as part of
this process.
So I
just wanted to note my whole concept here is about we have a responsibility. As
we move forward, we need to do due diligence here and ensure that the process
here is engaging and is conducive to ensuring people have the environment that
they want to have here and that the right message is sent to our society.
So, Mr.
Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak to this and we look forward to
the vote in the very near future.
Thank
you.
MR. KIRBY:
(Inaudible.) I just have a
brief comment in response to the Member (inaudible). I'm glad to see he's had a
change of heart (inaudible). He did omit the fact that, while he did apologize
to the House of Assembly, he immediately left the House of Assembly, went
outside of the door here and told reporters: “I find it hard to apologize for
being active, doing nothing wrong – doing nothing, and the reports have shown
that ....”
So I'm
glad the Member has seen through to actually realize that he did make a genuine
apology here in the House of Assembly, as anyone should if they are reprimanded,
and not to immediately go outside the door here and disavow that apology and say
they did nothing wrong and that they didn't apologize.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Any
further speakers to the motion?
Is the
House ready for the question?
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Motion 4.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Health and Community Services, the following motion:
WHEREAS
in accordance with subsection 39 of the
House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, the
Commissioner for Legislative Standards has recommended to this Honourable House
that MHA KIRBY be reprimanded for a violation of Principle 5 of the Code of
Conduct for Members.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly concurs in that
recommendation and asks that the Member for MOUNT SCIO stand in his place in
this House of Assembly and apologize to this Assembly for the failure and
violation as cited by the report of the Commissioner for Legislative Standards
of October 3, 2018.
Mr.
Speaker, similar to my last comments, I'm not going to belabour it much more.
What I would suggest is that anybody who reads this some day or listens to it,
they can go back to what I said in the previous motion. I don't need to bore
anybody by saying the same thing over.
As
Government House Leader, my job is to move recommendations forward in this
House. The recommendation that is moved forward is identical to the
recommendation provided by the Commissioner for Legislative Standards. In my
previous experience seeing these, the recommendations that have been moved in
the House concurred with the Commissioner for Legislative Standards. That's the
process that's been followed here. It's up to Members to choose how they feel
about that, whether they want to concur, to not to concur, to debate. That's the
purpose of this.
I'm
standing and moving this now, and Members will have an opportunity to speak to
this particular resolution.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
I
recognize the hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, we in the
Official Opposition regretfully cannot concur with the motion. I will explain
why.
I'm
having regard here, while I'm on my feet, to the report of October 3, 2018,
The Kirby Report referenced in the
motion, and I'm looking at page 23, in which the Commissioner sets out as
follows: he cites the section of the act, which “authorizes the Commissioner to
recommend a penalty.”
He goes
on to outline mitigating factors. He says: “In the circumstances of this case,
that is, where the majority of the allegations have been dismissed, where the
member has admitted to the conduct in question and has been cooperative
throughout, and where the member has suffered a significant financial penalty in
being removed from Cabinet for a significant period of time, it is my
recommendation to the House of Assembly that MHA Kirby be reprimanded.”
Mr.
Speaker, it is the position of this side of the House, with the greatest of
respect to the Commissioner, and it's based on events which have transpired
after the tabling of the report, that the mitigating factors identified by the
Commissioner have now been negated by aggravating conduct, which shows
intransigence, defiance and absence of remorse on the part of the Member who is
proposed to be reprimanded.
The
aspect of the Code, which he has been found by the Commissioner – and which it
is proposed by the government side be confirmed – to have violated, is that
“Members will not engage in personal conduct that exploits for private reasons
their positions or authorities or that would tend to bring discredit to their
offices.”
Given
the apparent unwillingness of the Member concerned to publicly admit the gravity
of his conduct, or in fact that he misconducted himself in relation to the Code
of Conduct at all, we do believe on this side of the House that a different
penalty is warranted in the circumstances.
I would
therefore move an amendment. The amendment would be as follows: That the
resolution respecting the report of the Commissioner for Legislative Standards
of October 3, 2018 be amended by adding before the period the following: “and
further orders that the Member be suspended from the House of Assembly without
pay for a period of 21 days.” Seconded by the Member for Ferryland.
In other
words, Mr. Speaker, the reprimand would stand as recommended by the hon. the
House Leader and his side of the House, but a further penalty of suspension from
the House of Assembly without pay for a period of 21 days would be added.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
At this time, I would call to
recess the House of Assembly while I review the amendment to ensure that it's in
order.
Thank
you.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Regarding the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Official Opposition, I
find that the amendment is in order and I would instruct the Member to now speak
to the amendment.
Thank
you.
The hon.
the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I could
really only repeat my remarks I made prior to proposing the amendment, and those
have to do with a manifestation since the date of the report and the tabling of
the report of a level of intransigence and lack of acceptance of the findings of
misconduct on the part of the Member. And on that basis, it's our submission to
the House that a somewhat more severe penalty is in order.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
speakers?
The hon.
the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, I'm just going
to speak for a few minutes on the amendment. I got a bit of a memory. I remember
when the Member for Portugal-St. Philip's?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Conception Bay East - Bell
Island.
MR. JOYCE:
– Conception Bay East - Bell
Island found himself in a little pickle and I was a Member of the Opposition.
Mr. Speaker, at the time, we all said listen, what happened, happened and it's
not a big deal. One of the proudest things I did – and I spoke to our caucus and
we all agreed – I went over to the Member and I said: Look, here's what we're
going to do; we're going to get you to stand up and apologize, and let's all
move on.
I
remember him shaking my hand and saying: Eddie, I'll never forget this; thanks.
But here we are today, the same Member coming up and changing the amendment, Mr.
Speaker, because then we can move on with government business.
At the
time, we said, like, no one is going to win out of this here; no one is going to
win out of this. Mr. Speaker, that's something I was proud of. I didn't want to
go beat on somebody; I didn't want to go and make political hay out of it, Mr.
Speaker, because he does he have family. He was out in the public.
I just
have to say, when we were in Opposition, I remember coming in and saying let's
do this; let's be hon. Members here. And we did it. I just got to put that on
the record. I was proud that I was the one that walked over. I remember him
shaking my hand. I'll never forget it, Eddie, he said, I'll never forget it;
thank you very much. But I guess time changed and opportunity changes.
So I
remember another time another Member, Kevin O'Brien, was into a bit of a stew. I
remember I was on Open Line and that
came up about Kevin O'Brien. I stood up and I said, no, he treated me fairly. He
was always good to me. You know, I wouldn't take the political stand just for
the sake of politics because you have to speak the way it is.
So, Mr.
Speaker, sometimes politics does steep in. It creeps in, and when it does creep
in, Mr. Speaker, here's an example today. I can tell you, when the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island was in that, he was more than appreciative
that when I walked over – and I remember it was just down in that corner, I
remember walking over and speaking to him and saying: We can't play politics
with this; we're just going to take it and move on.
So I say
to the Leader of the Opposition, we offered that courtesy to ensure that
politics wouldn't steep in, but I guess time changed and there's a little
political game here to be played. It's kind of sad that when you offer this as a
gentlemen, we were in the Opposition at the time, but now all of a sudden the
shoe is on the other foot and they say: Ah, let's play politics; let's keep it
going.
So a sad
day, but the Member from Conception Bay, I'm glad I did it. I'm glad I rose
above all of that and I'm glad I went over and did it. I thank you for thanking
me and saying you never forgot it, but I can tell you one thing: You got a short
memory.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker. Speaking to the amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
Correct.
MS. MICHAEL:
I shall be supporting the
amendment, and we shall be supporting the amendment, as the Third Party caucus.
When I
read the report and saw what the Commissioner was recommending – reprimand – it
seemed pretty slight to me in terms of the report itself and what the Member had
been found guilty of, in terms of what had been broken in the Code of Conduct:
“Members will not engage in personal conduct that exploits for private reasons
their positions or authorities or that would tend to bring discredit to their
offices.”
I think
we're here today making decisions on this resolution, and in some way setting
precedent. We haven't dealt with this kind of an issue here in the House of
Assembly before, and so what we decide is something that will become part of
precedence.
In the
light of something that's been pointed out by the Leader of the Official
Opposition, in the light of public comments that have been made by the Member
since the report was released by him, there seems to be a sense of not
understanding even why he has been found guilty of going against section 5 of
the Code of Conduct. In that sense, there's intransigence that I think needs to
be recognized.
For that
reason, we will be supporting this amendment to the resolution.
MR. SPEAKER:
Any further speakers to the
amendment?
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I
have to say I wasn't intending on speaking, but now that we have an amendment, I
feel I have a responsibility to at least put my view on the record as I'm not
represented by either of the parties.
Mr.
Speaker, once again, as I said the last time, and I will repeat, I do understand
– I really do understand – where the Official Opposition is coming from; I
understand where the Third Party is coming from, as well, and their concerns. I
think we all have questions and concerns about this report, about all the
reports.
I
certainly don't want it perceived as somehow I am dismissing the seriousness of
it or dismissing the concerns of the complainants, but I have to say once again,
in all fairness to the process, I cannot in good conscience – we have a process
that took place. We all have acknowledged we have concerns with the process. I
have concerns with the process. There were questions that I had that I was
hoping were going to be answered by the Commissioner yesterday that weren't
answered, so I have to go on what the Commissioner is saying based on the fact
that he did the investigation, he interviewed witnesses, he engaged an outside
consultant.
I wasn't
part of any of it. I didn't witness any of it. I was not privy to the
investigation. I was not privy to the interviews. I had no conversations with
witnesses or anything else. While I may feel, personally, in reading it, while I
may have my reservations about some of the things that are alleged and some of
the things that were acknowledged, I really don't feel that it is my place –
albeit, I understand under this process we have the right, as has been done, to
make an amendment in terms of the findings, whether we agree with, I guess, the
punitive measures that will be taken, the punishment, whatever you want to call
it, but, again, I have to go with the Commissioner based on the process that we
have.
I'm not
really sure where 21 days came from. You know, I don't know where that even came
from. I don't know if it was an arbitrary number that somebody picked out of the
sky or if it's based on some kind of precedent or something. I have no idea, and
I'm not challenging that per se, but I really don't feel that it's my place.
Based on the process that we have, I really don't feel it's my place to be
overruling the Commissioner, who had all the facts, in theory, had all the
information, had access to consultants, interviews and so on, and I didn't, and
for me to be overruling his findings, even if I do have personal concerns, but I
don't have all the facts, only what I'm reading here. And there's a lot of stuff
that was said that I would be privy to that wouldn't be in the report and so on.
So,
based on that, I will be concurring with the Commissioner's report and I won't
be supporting the amendment, again, out of fairness to everybody and the
process. It could be anybody. Anybody tomorrow could be under the microscope for
something. It may not be something like this; it could be something else. And I
would want to ensure that there was a process in place that was agreed to by
everybody that made sure that everything was done properly and everybody was
treated fairly. Right now, we don't have that process, to my mind, and I'm not
prepared to go beyond what has been recommended by the Commissioner, who had
certainly more information than I did in making this decision.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'll
speak very quickly to the amendment that's been proposed. I get asked a lot of
questions about, you know, how this procedure is going to go, how the House is
going to work, and I always say that the only thing that's certain here is
uncertainty – expect the unexpected – but the amendment proposed by the
Opposition was certainly not unexpected. I expected them to move a motion. I
guess I'm speaking certainly for myself, but perhaps for this side, when I say
we will not be supporting that amendment for a number of reasons.
One of
them, I'll just put this out as a general thought, that I've spoken to this
process and it's been difficult, and the inherent political nature that's here.
The amendment that's been moved by the Official Opposition, supported by the
NDP, is inherently political – inherently political.
We have
a Member come in, and whether you agree or disagree with the process, and I
think there's a lot of talk about that, we've just had two votes on reports by
the Commissioner where there's been no indication that there was an issue with
the Commissioner's findings there, but now there's an issue with the
Commissioner's findings and recommendation.
Now, I
did take the opportunity – I supported the Official Opposition PMR where we had
the Commissioner show up in the House. I made a point of asking questions about
the penalties, and specifically there are four. I don't think we've ever seen in
the history of this House – we've never seen the vacating of a seat. I'm not
aware – perhaps there's been cases of the suspension of a Member. The other
penalty is obviously a fine or a restitution. And there's also the reprimand,
which in and of itself is generally an apology.
I
listened to the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands when he talked about a Code
of Conduct breach by a Member across the way, Conception Bay East - Bell Island,
and it was noted in the report all these things. It said, actually, there
shouldn't be a fine because in that case there was no evidence of financial gain
in that. I don't believe there's been any evidence of financial gain in what's
being suggested here.
What's
being suggested is quite punitive and there's been no background put forward to
support that. I think we're following the recommendations of the Commissioner
for Legislative Standards in suggesting a reprimand and we will not be
supporting the amendment that's been put forward for political reasons and,
again, we will continue on with the debate.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just
wanted to speak to the amendment and the motion and some of the comments made by
my hon. friend, the Government House Leader.
We are
dealing with five motions here; three of them did not indicate a violation or a
recommendation from the Commissioner related to the provisions of the violations
of the Code of Conduct and what they may be: there may be a reprimand; they may
“make restitution or pay compensation; The Member may be suspended from the
House, with or without pay, for a specified period; or The Member's seat be
declared vacant.”
We have
two others that a penalty is recommended, the word reprimand is used, but as I
said before, it's within the authority of this Legislature to – and we are the
ones that need to confirm or not concur with that, or to make changes. That's
well within the parameters of this.
These
are issues that are new, or certainly what we're dealing with here, the Premier
has indicated there's a threshold here and we need to do things better. I think
this is all about looking at what the Commissioner has said in the report, the
recommendations, what has occurred and how do we feel going forward. As my
colleague for the Third Party indicated, this is about precedent setting for
future journeys. Hopefully we don't have any, but if in case there is.
So I do
take a bit of an exception to what the Member had said. This is specific to two
particular cases where the Commissioner did feel it was necessary for a penalty
for violations of the Code, and what we're deciding on here is based on those
activities and what was found, what that penalty should be. Members are free to
vote to that, vote to the concurrence motion or vote to the amendment, and
everybody is free to do as what their conscience feels free they should do.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Any further speakers to the
amendment?
If not,
is the House ready for the question?
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
MR. SPEAKER:
In my opinion, the amendment
is not approved.
The hon.
the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.
MS. P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
That's right, it's Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.
What I
will say, I mean, to stand in my place here and talk, I'm not talking about
something positive in nature per se or lighthearted as we do when we deliver
Members' statements, but, Mr. Speaker, it certainly is a very serious topic
indeed.
When I
ran for the position of Speaker, I was trying to set an example for young girls
and women, and that going for something and putting myself forward, you know,
can often be as important as actually winning. I felt there was a value in
having a woman step forward for the position for the very first time in our
history as a province, regardless of the outcome. And the Premier told me he
felt the same way, and encouraged me to put my name forward.
The
fallout from my decision is all too well known. By itself, however, it was not
the reason for filing a complaint. It was a culmination of a pattern of
behaviour over an extended period of time since becoming an MHA. I will remember
back when first becoming elected. I'm a very vocal MHA, as everyone in this
House knows, and while advocating on behalf of my constituents about certain
topics, in particular the 1.6-kilometre busing policy. I'm very vocal about
that, so it all kind of stems back from that. So I indeed filed a complaint.
I was
uncertain about the process and remained uncertain throughout the entire time. I
think, Mr. Speaker, it's safe to say the entire province, anybody watching, was
uncertain about this process.
When the
report became public without my knowledge and without my permission, it became a
very stressful and painful experience. And, yes, I started to wonder if I should
have ever filed a complaint in the first place. I asked myself: Was it worth it?
I asked my family: Was it worth it? Not because I was any less certain of my
complaint, but I started to question whether this pain – and I will say pain
because it certainly was painful and embarrassing and stressful – was it worth
it? Was it worth the whole price to pay? I also asked: Were our efforts worth it
to make this place a better place?
Then the
people in here in the House of Assembly from my own caucus and the people, of
course, colleagues across the aisle, reached out to me to support me. I want to
thank you all for that support that I have received throughout this entire
process. I want to thank my family, my poor mother and father. They've taken on
a lot of stress through this as well. My sister. But the people of my district,
the strong District of Harbour Grace - Port de Grave, Mr. Speaker, stand behind
me and they show me that respect and that support daily.
The
calls I have received, the messages I have received on social media and in email
– I've even gotten calls from across our province from female officers in the
RCMP. So from the bottom of my heart, thank you so much, and that resounding
message was: You're not alone; keep doing what you're doing.
At this
time, I also want to recognize a public servant here in government. Just when
the House resumed, we came back in early in the House to discuss these matters,
and an employee who I don't know, a young man, approached me as I was walking to
my car one evening and said: Thank you, Pam Parsons, for what you're doing; a
couple of years ago, this sort of thing never would have been heard of and
people are afraid to come forward, so thank you.
So I
must say, just hearing those small gestures, they mean the world and it
confirmed to me that, yes, we certainly are doing the right thing. But I was not
looking for nor do I need anyone to feel sorry for me. I consider myself to be a
strong, independent woman and I can take care of myself. But knowing I had that
support and I still have that support certainly helps get us through those tough
days.
This was
never about gender; it's about behaviour. There are a lot of good people in
here, Mr. Speaker, people on all sides of our House, wonderful people who put
themselves forward on behalf of their constituents, and the fact that we're all
here in this House proves that. People have confidence in us. People are
expecting us and watching us and wanting us to do the right thing. I am
completely confident in our ability to work together with the utmost respect.
The
Premier has acknowledged that the process we have in place now is flawed. The
Premier has vowed to have it changed, and I have no doubt that he will. I also
have no doubt that this will be an all-party effort. I am very grateful to the
Premier for acknowledging the roles of MHA Sherry Gambin-Walsh, Colin Holloway,
Tracey Perry and myself –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I would
remind the Member, please do not reference other colleagues by name.
MS. P. PARSONS:
Sorry, Mr. Speaker.
(Inaudible) of course for the Placentia - St. Mary's, and of course the MHA for
Terra Nova and the MHA for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune, along with myself, in
playing this part in revealing the need for change – the very, very urgent need
for change.
It's
comforting to know that our efforts were not in vain, that we have played a role
and a part in helping bring about the best bullying and harassment policies in
the country. Also, to echo what my colleague across the way had said earlier
about the work of the Privileges and Elections Committee, I, too, am a Member of
that Committee and we have worked very hard, actually, consistently throughout
the summer, hearing from experts on this very topic. I look forward to having
those debates and that discussion in this House. I'm a proud Member of that
Committee, and, again, I look forward to contributing to that discussion as
well. To say that there will be good come from this whole unfortunate affair
makes it worth it.
In the
meantime, the Premier's leadership and message of no tolerance has well been
received. There are still some moments, obviously, of discomfort in this House
of Assembly as a result of certain continuing behaviours, but I truly believe
our caucus is already a safer and more respectful environment. Certainly, there
is less tension and our camaraderie is on the rise.
That
will be all for me, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Speaking
now to the resolution and I'd like to read the resolution once more.
“WHEREAS
in accordance with section 39 of the House
of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, the
Commissioner for Legislative Standards has recommended to this Honourable House
that MHA KIRBY be reprimanded for a violation of Principle 5 of the Code of
Conduct for Members.”
That is
the recommendation of the Commissioner, that there be a reprimand. I started
asking around: Are there any definitions anywhere of a reprimand? What would be
the nature of a reprimand? There's nothing in our legislation and there's
nothing that I could find, seeking it in the places where I thought there'd be
answers, as to what a reprimand is. So it's for this House to decide what the
reprimand is.
The
Government House Leader, as he has made reference to, is the conduit of the
resolution that comes to the floor of the House. While we agreed as the three
House Leaders to give leave for the resolution to come today, that didn't mean
that all three of us agreed on the content of the resolution.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly concurs in that
recommendation, the recommendation of the Commission – I do concur in the
recommendation of the Commission, but this goes on.
“THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly concurs in that
recommendation and asks that the Member for MOUNT SCIO stand in his place in
this House of Assembly and apologize to this Assembly for the failure and
violation as cited by the report of the Commissioner for Legislative Standards
of October 3, 2018.”
In
speaking to the amendment made by the Official Opposition, I made reference to
the report and why I think something more than an apology is needed. That is the
nature of a reprimand to say what we think a reprimand would be.
Now, I
shared earlier the story, that is not a public story, so you all have to take my
word for it that it happened when we did have, to my knowledge, a case of – it
was actually sexual harassment, not sexual assault, sexual harassment and it was
dealt with privately and everything that happened for that individual MHA was
done privately.
Part of
what that MHA had to go through was sexual harassment training to help that
person understand why what he was being accused of was, in actual fact, was
sexual harassment. Even though in his experience he would not have identified it
that way. So he had to go through a training process. And I actually watched
that person for at least a year after, and I could see a difference in that
person's behaviour because of his having gone through the training. I actually
saw the difference in his behaviour, physical difference in how he interchanged,
especially with women.
So when
I look at reprimand, it's a broad term and we can define that here. I don't
think defining that, in other words, saying what we think it means, is going
against the Commissioner. The Commissioner said there would be a reprimand; I
concur with that. But in the light of what I just said, I'm also going to move
an amendment. I move, seconded by the Member for St. John's Centre:
That the
resolution respecting the report of the Commissioner for Legislative Standards
of October 3, 2018 be amended immediately after the words “MOUNT SCIO” by
inserting the phrase “receive individualized respectful workplace training and”.
And then it continues on.
So that
insertion in the resolution is the amendment that I'm moving. I have copies for
the Law Clerk.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Again,
the House will recess to determine whether or not the amendment is in order.
Thank
you.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order, please.
Regarding the amendment proposed by the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi,
I have found that the amendment is in order.
I would
now instruct the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi to deliver remarks.
We will
be now debating the amendment.
Thank
you.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm
happy to speak to the amendment, and the reason why I'm recommending it.
One of
the things that the Privileges and Elections Committee has been doing since June
is studying all the issues around a respectful workplace, around harassment-free
workplace, what's happening in jurisdictions in our country, what's happening in
jurisdictions outside of our country, especially in the UK where they are coming
up with some tremendous policy around the issue of a respectful and
harassment-free workplace. All of this work that we've been doing is public.
It's there on our website. It can be found, people can see what we've been
studying.
One of
the most important things – prevention is very important when it comes to this
issue, and one of the most important things that can help with prevention is
training. I've mentioned one case here in our own jurisdiction that I'm aware
of, but you will find throughout the various jurisdictions, when you look at
their policies – it's mainly policies, in some cases legislation – the
importance put on training, and the importance put on training especially if
somebody has been found in violation in different ways when it comes to
behaviour in the workplace. So having training as part of the work, or part of –
or reprimand, whatever word you want to use, is something that is done.
We had
some wonderful presentations on training, actually, in the Privileges and
Elections Committee. One of them was about the different levels of which
training happens. I think nearly everybody in the House of Assembly, nobody had
to say whether they did or not, but I think the majority of us have taken the
training that we have, that's in place right now.
I've
asked some MHAs about their experience with that training. I know what ours was.
Two of us did it together, and it was very general. It wasn't really in-depth.
We will need much more than that to come to a full understanding of what a
harassment-free workplace is.
One of
the things that was pointed out is that very often we don't recognize our own
behaviour. Sometimes when you actually have a process of – a mediated process,
one of the things that very often comes out of a mediated process, when there's
been a complainant and a respondent, is what's called coaching. Individual
coaching is the word they used, but that's individualized training. It's helping
an individual recognize one's behaviour and recognize maybe something that the
person doesn't see themselves.
I mean,
I'm continually, in my lifetime, being told things that I don't see myself. It's
part of who we are as human beings. So I think adding this to the apology
strengthens the reprimand, not as strong as I want it, because I did vote for
the amendment by the Official Opposition, but I think it's an important piece to
add to the reprimand, the recognition that we do need to face.
I would
suggest that with the Commissioner saying a reprimand is needed, then the person
who's having that said to him needs to face: Well, what does that mean? Why has
this happened? Why has the Commissioner actually said this? Why did the
Commissioner find that there was a violation of the Code of Conduct and that
there should be a reprimand? So this kind of individualized training helps with
dealing with that kind of thing.
So, I
really would encourage the Members of the House to understand that I very
sincerely and seriously am putting this amendment forward thinking that it
really is something that we should have in our process as we move forward here
in this Assembly in dealing with the issues of harassment, or breaches of our
Code. Sometimes that's harassment, sometimes it's not but there is a breach of
Code that we're talking about here.
I really
would encourage the people in the House to see this, not as a political thing to
do simply because we are a party in Opposition, it's because I absolutely
believe that it should happen.
While it
wasn't public, we actually had that happen here in our jurisdiction. I was so
pleased at the time – because we're talking now about eight, nine years ago when
this kind of thing wasn't being talked about very much in legislatures. It was
happening, but facing it and dealing with it wasn't happening.
So, I'm
very pleased when I think back on it that that many years ago we actually did
see the need to deal with the issue, number one – and I applaud the caucus that
did it; none of you know which caucus it was – and number two, that the caucus
recognized that training was important.
It's in
that spirit that I do ask you to support this amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
speakers to the amendment?
Seeing
none, is the House ready for the question?
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
MR. SPEAKER:
In my opinion, the 'ayes'
have it and the amendment is adopted.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Division.
MR. SPEAKER:
Division has been called.
I need
three Members, I'm sorry.
The
Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island, do I have three Members standing
calling for a division?
Okay,
thank you.
Division
has been called.
I would
ask the Whips and the House Leaders to please call in their Members.
Division
MR. SPEAKER:
Whips and House Leaders, are
you ready?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion of the amendment?
All
those in favour of the motion, please rise.
CLERK:
Mr. Ball, Ms. Coady, Mr. Haggie, Ms. Dempster, Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Osborne, Mr.
Mitchelmore, Ms. Gambin-Walsh, Mr. Warr, Mr. Davis, Ms. Haley, Mr. Letto, Mr.
Browne, Mr. Bragg, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Finn, Mr. Reid, Ms. Parsley, Mr. King, Mr.
Dean, Ms. Pam Parsons, Mr. Holloway, Ms. Rogers, Ms. Michael, Mr. Lane.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against the motion
of the amendment, please rise.
CLERK:
Mr. Crosbie, Mr. Brazil, Ms.
Perry, Mr. Kevin Parsons, Mr. Petten, Mr. Lester, Mr. Joyce.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I do
require that the Member for Mount Scio vote one way or the other; there is no
provision in our Standing Orders to abstain.
I will
take that as a not present.
Please
record as same, thank you.
CLERK:
Mr. Speaker, the ayes 25 and
the nays 7.
MR. SPEAKER:
I declare that the amendment
is carried and now we will continue debate on the amended motion.
The hon.
the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'll
just spend a few minutes to speak about it. I heard the Member for Harbour Grace
- Port de Grave speak and I heard her say about when the report was released,
how she felt, and she thanked the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune that she
came forward.
I just
want to remind you, and I'm sure it was tough when the report was released, no
doubt, but just put yourself in my shoes.
MR. SPEAKER:
Again, I remind the Member to
please address your remarks to the Speaker.
MR. JOYCE:
Yes, Sir. Sorry, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
MR. JOYCE:
Put yourself in my shoes.
Just think about this. The Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune was standing up
April 26, I'm ready to go, I'm ready to go, here's my report, I'm ready to go.
Guess what? It was never put in until July – July.
I stand
up in this House with my name out across Canada, another MHA, July. And do you
know something? When the report came back there wasn't one allegation that was
even proven; not even one remote – not even remote. Do you know what it's all
about? She couldn't get what she needed, $60,000 down in her district, and that
was in the report. She couldn't get what she needed, and now my name put across
Canada, but oh no, we got to have confidentiality.
Then you
talk about the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's, when she walked down out there
on April 26 and Anthony Germain said to me: Well, you just ratted her out in
Cabinet. I wasn't even in Cabinet. The Member who was in Cabinet could stand up
and speak about it. Here's what the Leader of the Third Party said – you want to
talk about out in the public, here's what the Leader of the Third Party said.
That afternoon, when the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's stood up out there
and said Eddie Joyce, well, somebody leaked my name, was absolutely false.
Mr.
Speaker, this bothers me so much. When we had the caucus meeting April 25 – and
I could start naming, I had 10 Members to give to the Commissioner if I ever got
an interview, 10. When she walked in the caucus on April 25, she said: I just
filed a complaint with the Premier. Ten names that I had that heard it, and I
know there are a lot more. And go out there on April 26 and say Eddie Joyce,
well, somebody leaked my name, and it was all out in the media how I put the –
here's what the Leader of the Third Party said when I walked in – you want to
know how you feel? Ask me. I'm sure you felt bad. I'm sure you did. I'm not
taking away one bit how you felt, not taking away one bit. Put yourself in my
shoes.
Here's
what the Member, the Leader of the Third Party, said: “Mr. Speaker, as a woman
and as elected Member of the House, I'm appalled at the behaviour of the Member
for Humber - Bay of Islands to publicly name those who have complained of
harassment by him, further victimizing them. This vengeful tactic is not at all
acceptable, and I am furious at the Member for Humber Bay of Islands for his
total disrespect of this House, for our MHAs and the people of the province.
“I ask
the Premier what is he going to do about it immediately while this Member is
sitting in the House.”
I ask
the Leader of the Third Party: Would you like to stand and apologize for that?
MR. SPEAKER:
Again I remind the Member,
please address your remarks to the Speaker.
MR. JOYCE:
I'm sorry.
I ask
the Speaker: Do you think someone should apologize for making those false
claims? And people want to hear about me, what I went through for seven months?
And knowing then that when you got the information and you put it together that
I knew for months about code names going back and forth, and knowing then that
the information, that every meeting that you had, three people, the only
consistent one was the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's. And I knew that my
name was being passed to the Opposition to ask questions in the House of
Assembly. Do you want to know how it feels to have your name out there? Do you
want to know how it feels? Ask me.
When it
comes back, there was no bullying or harassment – absolutely none. Once I get
into the complaints, when I starts talking about the complaints – and the Member
for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune stands up, I'm ready. I'm ready. I got my report.
I got my report, I'm going to file it three months later. And I had to go all
across Canada how I was a bully and harassing and another person came forward.
Every
one of those Members, myself and the Member for Mount Scio – everyone of those
Members put our names out in the public. Now all of a sudden everybody: oh, it
got to confidential. Oh, you got to make sure; you can't release a report. You
got to – I mean, just think what we went through. Just think.
Premier,
on April 25 when we had that meeting and we were going to have mediation, I am
confident that you never ever thought that my name was going to be in the media
the next day. I am confident; I am 100 per cent confident that that wasn't going
to be raised in this House of Assembly. It was not going to be raised by the
Leader of the Opposition in the House of Assembly. I am confident that you
didn't expect that, and I didn't expect that.
Then,
the next thing you know, I was the one who leaked all the names out there, which
is not true. What's the consequences for all this? What are the consequences?
So it's
all up here now and we got to debate it. Let's take a Member; let's suspend him
for 21 days. Probably you're going to do the same thing to me. What's the
consequences for all these allegations? What's the consequences when you put in
the Code of Conduct saying – giving that your personal finances got to be in
order. That was the old thing if you were bankrupt. What's the consequences for
that?
Everybody in this House said: oh, you got to be reprimanded even worse. You got
to go further. What's the consequences? What's the consequences saying I'm in a
conflict of interest, Mr. Speaker? What's the consequences?
So I'd
say to the Member, when the people who made these allegations, when you talk
about poor me, poor me – there's no doubt you felt bullied and harassed. I
agree, come forward, but when you intentionally leak names, being brought up on
the House of Assembly and you get the person embarrassed, kicked out of Cabinet,
removed, asked to be removed from caucus – I wouldn't want to put anyone in that
position. They would have to remove me, I would never do it. I would never ever
do that.
Mr.
Speaker, you know (inaudible) about code names. You know the stuff was being
passed back and forth. Do you want to know how I feel? What's the consequences
of that? What's the consequences in the reports when there's false information
about a person? What's the consequences? None. But here we are now debating what
should happen to us, which found no bullying and harassment – no bullying and
harassment, Mr. Speaker.
The
expert that came in found no bullying and harassment. Bruce Chaulk on his own,
he admitted he hasn't got the expertise. He admitted he doesn't have the
background to do it, but he decided to go ahead and find something. Yet, the
complainants, nothing – nothing. Isn't that a shame? Isn't that shocking?
So when
you vote, just remember who has been through this for the last seven months,
myself and the Member for Mount Scio. Just remember that. And I can say one
thing here, the way this process, it could be any one of you next. The way this
happened, anyone there. Because all you have to do is leak it to the media, give
a thing, say I just filed a complaint. It's all done with no foundation, no
background and intentionally – and I'm going to say this, Mr. Speaker,
intentionally standing here publicly on the 25 and 26 putting your names out
there to be scurried all across Canada. Then no one who says: oh, well, no big
deal, there's nothing to that.
How
about consequences? Are there any consequences ever going to be put into this
act? Are there any consequences, or do I have to go and file or take civil
action, or do I have to go file a complaint against Bruce Chaulk? When I get
into some of the allegations that were made against me, you'll see what I'm
talking about.
Mr.
Speaker, I have five witnesses saying that never happened, yet everybody
thought: oh, I did, I slammed down a computer. Five witnesses, it never
happened. It never did happen; yet, my name put across Canada. The complaint was
never made until three months later. The initial complaint of April 25 was put
in June 27 when I got my hands on it – two months later. Yet, out of Cabinet,
out of caucus, put across Canada you're a bully. That's how serious they were.
And I have to add, Mr. Speaker, the complaints that were made to the Premier of
the province were not the complaints that were in the initial report – were not.
So, Mr.
Speaker, I'll just take my –
MR. SPEAKER:
I'd like to remind the
Member, I'm going to give you as much leeway as I can, but, again, we are
focused on an amended motion dealing with
The Kirby Report, so I need you to
keep your comments there.
Please
proceed.
MR. JOYCE:
I'll just take my seat, Mr.
Speaker, because there is seven months of pent up frustration. For almost seven
months I never said a word. I never said a word. I went to the media a couple of
times and said I can't speak about the reports. I can't speak – but I had all
this information. I got more. I got more. I haven't got all this information. I
got other stuff that's leaked. I got more.
So, Mr.
Speaker, when you want to talk about thanking people, just remember, the person
you thanked is someone that stood up here, put me across Canada as a bully and
when it came back there was absolutely no foundation to it. There was over
$60,000 down in her district that she couldn't get the answer she needed. Not
what was right; what was needed.
So I
just want everybody to know that, that there are victims here. I know myself and
the Member for Mount Scio, when you get villainized all across Canada before you
even get a chance to see what your complaints are, I don't think that's very
fair.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Scio.
MR. KIRBY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'll
just have a few brief comments. I could say a lot, but I'll just say a small
amount.
I was
thinking about this a couple of weeks ago. I was reading
The
Globe and Mail.
There was a column in there by the president of Trent University, he said: “We
live in divisive times, full of insult and innuendo.” And that's certainly been
my experience with this deeply flawed process that we've been through.
I
just wish everyone in this House of Assembly, and I wish everyone in the
province, really, could read the two reports that were submitted by my accusers
back to back. Read them back to back, because I have, my wife has, my friends
have, my family has, my three lawyers I had look at it, and it's just – you'd be
shocked by just the nastiness of it.
The
name-calling. I'm accused of being a bully and a harasser, but these documents
are – one of them in particular –just full of name-calling and just toxicity –
just absolute toxicity. The animosity comes through, and the hatred is all I
could say it is. And that shocked me and that shocked my wife. In particular,
because these accusers were, just a few weeks before, at my house sitting at the
kitchen table playing guitar, singing songs. Where was the concern about safety
then? I say the Member talked about safety, and I'm a bit taken aback.
I'll
just read an email that I received on the 29th of October, shortly after these
reports became public. I won't identify anyone, but I'm sure people understand
where I'm coming from and understand the context of this. This person is a
journalist of some renowned, I have a lot of respect for; somebody that has a
lot of integrity. It was only one sentence the person sent to me, and it said:
I'm told that – and they named a Member of the government caucus – has been
accused of abusing their constituency assistant, and this has been brought to
the Premier's attention. This abusive relationship that included physical
violence, okay?
I've
never been violent with any staff person. I work with thousands of public
servants in my career, I've never been violent with a single one of them. I've
never been violent with my family. I've never been violent with my friends, and
I've never been violent with another human being
in my life. But this message I received about a Member of the government caucus
– so if people want to talk about safety, there are more bigger concerns about
safety than me, I assure you that much.
I just
want to say to the former leader of the Third Party, I just want to remind
everybody here in the House of Assembly, we were exonerated by Rubin Thomlinson.
There were no proven allegations of bullying and harassment; please remember
that.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Any
further speakers to the motion as amended?
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just
wanted for clarification because I did indicate when I spoke before that I
really wasn't prepared to go beyond what the Commissioner had recommended,
because he was the one who had hired the expertise, did the interviews and so
on, and he came to his decision, I didn't think it would be my place to overstep
what he has recommended.
I know
we have the right to do it, but I just don't feel that it's the right thing for
me to do. That's just my personal decision. I did support the amendment, the
latest amendment on the training. I just want to expand on it, very briefly, to
say that while I supported that amendment in that particular case, I support
that amendment in general for all cases.
It was a
case of having to vote for it, if I believed it was appropriate, but I would say
to all Members of the House I believe on a go-forward basis, whether it be any
report for discussion today, or God help us if there's any more in the future,
that it should just be an automatic go to that anyone who is ever found guilty
of a breach that has anything to do with bullying, harassment, that would be an
automatic that you would have to do training. I think that would be pretty
standard for any workplace that has policies around that. So I just wanted to
make that point.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Any
further speakers to the motion?
Is the
House ready for the question?
The
question is that the motion, as amended – is there support for the motion, as
amended?
All
those in favour of the motion, as amended, please say 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Division.
MR. SPEAKER:
Division has been called.
House
Leaders and Whips, please call in your Members.
Division
MR. SPEAKER:
Are House Leaders ready?
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion, as amended?
All
those in favour, please rise.
CLERK:
Mr. Ball, Ms. Coady, Mr.
Haggie, Ms. Dempster, Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Osborne, Mr. Mitchelmore, Ms.
Gambin-Walsh, Mr. Warr, Mr. Davis, Mr. Edmunds, Ms. Haley, Mr. Letto, Mr.
Browne, Mr. Bragg, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Reid, Ms. Parsley, Mr. King, Mr. Dean, Ms.
Pam Parsons, Mr. Holloway, Ms. Rogers, Ms. Michael, Mr. Lane.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against the motion,
as amended, please rise.
CLERK:
Mr. Crosbie, Mr. Brazil, Ms.
Perry, Mr. Kevin Parsons, Mr. Petten, Mr. Lester.
Mr.
Speaker, the ayes 25 and the nays 6.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The
motion, as amended, is carried.
The hon.
the Deputy Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move
that we take a half hour recess to have some supper and return within a half
hour at 6 o'clock.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
This House stands in recess
until 30 minutes from now; let's make it 1800 hours, 6 o'clock.
Thank
you.
Recess
The
House resumed at 6:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order, please.
I now
call on the Deputy Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Motion 5.
MR. SPEAKER:
Motion 5.
The hon.
the Deputy Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Health and Community Services, the following resolution:
WHEREAS
in accordance with subsection 39 of House
of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, the
Commissioner for Legislative Standards has recommended to this hon. House that
MHA Joyce be reprimanded for a violation of Principle 10 of the Code of Conduct
for Members.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly concurs in that
recommendation, and ask that the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands stand in his
place in this House of Assembly and apologize to this Assembly for the failure
and violation as cited by the report of the Commissioner for Legislative
Standards for October 18, 2018.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Deputy Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We've
had a challenging day here in the House of Assembly, and I say challenging
because change is always challenging, and these are difficult subjects that
we're dealing with and difficult processes. Many, many people in this House have
spoken to the process and spoken to the challenges.
I
thought the Premier's remarks earlier this evening, earlier today, were very
eloquent in talking about how we must have improved processes. I thank my
colleagues from all sides of the House that are on the Privileges and Elections
Committee in doing the hard work of making sure that change does occur.
Mr.
Speaker, I think we all accept in this House, and the Premier has said in the
past, that there is zero tolerance of harassment and abuse and anything of its
nature. I think that while the reports have been clear that the Commissioner
didn't feel that that was the case, I just want to make sure that the people in
the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador know that all of us, in this House,
really do want to show the leadership that is required on this very important
issue. It's an important one. We've seen over the last number of years, in
particular women, but I think the entire community – and I'm just not talking
about in St. John's; I'm talking about the community of humanity has been
standing up and saying time's up, to coin a phrase that has been used.
I think
we all accept that we have to do better in our society. As I heard earlier from
a number of Members, the Code of Conduct is an important document by which we
all swear in this House of Assembly to uphold the principles of the Code of
Conduct. The Code of Conduct does speak to the way we present ourselves, Mr.
Speaker. I think that all of us have learned a lot in the last six months. As
I've said to my family, my friends, my colleagues, we all have to check our
behaviour from time to time and we all have to be cognizant of the way we impact
others.
There's
nobody in this House that is angelic. There is nobody that I've ever met, save
my mother probably – I have to say that – and my grandmother that is –
AN HON. MEMBER:
Good choice.
MS. COADY:
Thank you.
That is
as close to God as we all need to be I guess in some ways. Mr. Speaker, we all
have to recognize the impacts of our behaviour and take responsibility for that.
I think that as we move forward in society we are seeing in the last couple of
years, and I think we'll see in the next few years, societal change and a
reflection on being better.
Everyone
in this House – everyone in this House – everyone in our communities, everyone
in this province wants to be better. So I think we can challenge ourselves to
reflect on our own behaviours. We challenge ourselves to reflect on how we can
be better, better people. I think that if there's one thing we've all learned in
this very, very difficult lesson is that we can do that. I think it's very
important that we all do that and reflect upon that.
We've
spoken in this House about how important understanding and training and being
aware and getting that knowledge of how our behaviour impacts one another, Mr.
Speaker. I say that not just for this House. The Premier spoke very passionately
and eloquently earlier when he talked about that. This is a greater societal
requirement as well because social media really does impact us more. It impacts
the people in this House especially as politicians, but even the civility that
is required in daily converse is kind of lost when you're in social media
because you don't have that connection.
I appeal
to everybody, I appeal to everyone for us to take that time to reflect. I know
I'm reflecting on that. I've been reflecting on that for the last six months,
trying to improve the way I interact with people, trying to make sure that I'm a
better person because of this. I think all of us in this House want to be better
people because of it.
This is
difficult. We will fix the process. The Premier said that earlier. We've got
great people in this House that are working on that and everyone across the
country, everyone around the world is really going to reflect upon some of the
advancements that this House is going to make because this process has been
difficult for everyone – for everyone – in particular, those directly involved,
but I would say for all of us because we're reflecting upon some of the things
as well.
I'm
going to take my seat, Mr. Speaker. I do implore that all of us take that
understanding, as you said earlier today, that we are respectful to one another,
we are respectful of the process, we are respectful of the fact that we may have
differing views, and it's okay to have differing views. We may be passionate in
those differing views but, at the end of the day, we work together for the
betterment of the people of this province and that's who put us here, that's who
we're responsible to, and I think we'll all be better coming out of this
process.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the hon. minister for those opening remarks. The resolution, again, raises the
issue in our minds here in the Official Opposition as to the adequacy of
reprimand as a sanction for the conduct which has been pronounced by the
Commissioner as unacceptable and contrary to Code.
Mr.
Speaker, I'll just read from the final page, which is 36 of the report that's in
question here, that we're now considering. I'll pick this out of my binder so
I'm not bending down to see it.
So the
final two paragraphs go like this: “I think” – and this is the Commissioner
speaking – “MHA Joyce's actions relating to the hiring process are better
captured by language contained in the Code of Conduct.” In other words, the
Member is quite right in pointing out that there is no finding entered against
him, or recommended against him, by the Commissioner based on the concept of
harassment or bullying.
“In the
manner in which he dealt with the Complainant, and particularly during the call
on April 8th, I do not think that MHA Joyce met the expectations of the Code of
Conduct, that he perform his duties with '…accountability, courtesy, honesty and
integrity.' I think his attempts to influence the Complainant's actions, as well
as his response when she failed to affect his desired outcome, were outside the
'norm' of political interactions and were below the standards expected of
persons in their role within government.”
Again,
in the following paragraph: “I find that the conduct of MHA Joyce is a violation
of principle 10 of the Code of Conduct.” And just so we're all able to follow
that, I will read Principle 10: “Relationships between Members and government
employees should be professional and based upon mutual respect and should have
regard to the duty of those employees to remain politically impartial when
carrying out their duties.”
Back to
the Commissioner: “His behaviour during the hiring process fell below the
standard expected of a member of the House of Assembly. I find that the manner
in which he addressed this issue was unprofessional and showed a lack of mutual
respect towards members of the public service by placing those individuals in
the middle of a process that is supposed to be politically impartial. This type
of conduct is not acceptable and must be discouraged.”
Mr.
Speaker, it could be added that it might well be thought by many Members that
not just Principle 10, but other principles of the Code of Conduct were violated
by the findings of fact that the Commissioner entered in this report.
For
example, Principle 6: “Members will carry out their official duties and arrange
their private financial affairs in a manner that protects the public interest
and enhances public confidence and trust in government and in high standards of
ethical conduct in public office” The reference back being to carry out their
official duties, and the requirement is high standards and ethical conduct which
enhances public confidence and trust.
So,
again, in relation to the Member whose conduct this report comes to us in regard
of, we on this side of the House feel that this Member has demonstrated in his
public comments here in this House and outside in the media, intransigence,
defiance and absence of remorse, and in the face of that a mere reprimand is not
sufficient sanction. We do not concur in that sanction, and I would now move an
amendment as follows:
That the
Resolution respecting the report of the Commissioner for Legislative Standards
of October 18, 2018 be amended by adding before the period, the following: “and
further orders that the Member be suspended from the House of Assembly without
pay for a period of 21 days.”
This is
seconded by the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The
House will now recess, I'm going to say for approximately five minutes, to
consider the amendment.
Thank
you.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Regarding the amendment from the Member for Windsor Lake, the hon. the Leader of
the Official Opposition, we've reviewed the proposed amendment and we find that
it is in order.
I would
ask you, Sir, now to start the debate on the amendment that you have proposed.
Thank
you.
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, I'm indebted.
Whoever accused lawyers of being paid by the word didn't spend a lot of time in
a legislative Chamber.
Taking
that advice to heart, I'm going to say very little extra than what I've already
stated. I stated our rationale, our reasoning for seeking a sanction, which is
stronger than merely a reprimand. With that, I'll rest on my previous remarks
and incorporate them in these remarks that I now make in support of the
amendment that we moved.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Are
there further speakers to the amendment as proposed?
The hon.
the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'll get
the opportunity to read the letter in that I was hoping you would have an answer
today for, before we spoke today because I said it was of an urgent nature. I
say to the Leader of the Opposition, I'm not defiant, I'm confident that I did
nothing wrong. There's a big difference from being defiant and knowing in your
heart of hearts and I think if you listened to the report …
I ask
the Leader of the Opposition: When was the last time you were ever in court and
your defendant never got a chance in a discovery to give a statement? How long
would it take you to take it to a higher court to appeal it? Before you make
those statements, Sir, you should look at your past profession.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm going to read this in too and I was hoping you'd get an answer
today because it's of an urgent nature. I put it in there. And I want all
Members to know this, not only was I not given the opportunity, not given the
opportunity to appear, I want you to listen to this letter and if you vote for
this after this, well, I guess that's all you can do, it's all I can do.
I sent
it to the Speaker today and I guess the Speaker never got an answer for me. I'm
assuming you never, Mr. Speaker, because the judgment is going to be made or the
decision is going to be made soon. Am I correct on that, Sir? I'm assuming you
never got an answer on this letter.
MR. SPEAKER:
I would ask you to continue
your remarks. Well, let's bring it out in the open. Yes, your request on the
letter arrived at approximately 1300 hours today. I haven't had a chance. I did
discuss with you last week about responding to your question. I will apologize
on that point, but we have been a little distracted. I will let you please
proceed and read the letter. I don't have an answer for you yet, but I will
undertake to do so.
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, I'll just say
the answer you could've got was if you had a get-together with one or two
management, and you were there. You can answer it yourself. You were at the
meeting because when I showed you the letter from the lawyer, you said: Oh,
that's not what was said. That was your comment to me. Just read there to the
right, Sir. So you can answer this yourself.
I'll
just read the letter: “Yesterday at the Hearing during questioning of Mr. Bruce
Chaulk who is an Officer of the House of Assembly, he made a comment that there
was no need to meet or interview all witnesses.
“On
October 24th, 2018 in the in-camera session with Mr. Chaulk, he stated” – and
the in-camera session was with the Management Commission – “that one person
refused to be interviewed and that person was identified as myself ….
“I
understand that this was an in-camera session but he made false, misleading and
damaging statements for me to mount a defense as respondent in the bullying and
harassment allegations. However, when false statements are made in-camera or in
public by an Officer of the House towards a Member of the House of Assembly,
this has to be addressed and rectified.
“On
October 26th, 2018, I wrote you requesting information, but, unfortunately, I
never received the information I needed.
“You, as
Speaker and Chair of the Management Commission, has the responsibility to uphold
the rights of all Members of the House of Assembly. My rights have been violated
and I am requesting you, as Speaker, to ask Mr. Chaulk for written and public
apology. He is an Officer of the House of Assembly and answers to the Management
Commission and I expect you will fulfil your sworn duties to protect the rights
of all Members of the House of Assembly.
“As
debate will begin today, I am requesting your immediate attention and if
necessary, an emergency meeting of the Management Commission to ensure my rights
as a Member of the House of Assembly are not violated.”
So just
to let you know, not only did I not get it, you went to the Management
Commission and made a statement which was absolutely false that one Member
refused to participate. So here I am, once again, standing in the House, no
interview. The witness that I asked to be called, weren't called – and one of
them was the Premier of the province, by the way, that I put down that should be
called, to back up what was told to me on the October 25, wasn't called.
Now the
Officer of the House goes into the Management Commission and makes a statement
which is false, and I got to stand here and take it? Is there any such thing as
natural justice, your right to be heard? Or is this just the lynching? Okay,
let's get it over with, and who cares about his rights. Come on; let's get it
done.
Is this
what this is all about? This is almost getting to the point where you're almost
like somewhere over in Syria where, if a neighbour leaks it to somebody else,
and say oh, this guy is saying this about you. They'd take you out and flog you
before they even get a chance to speak to you.
When
your name gets put out in the public domain and you find out then that it's
passed around and it's been leaked out and you're publicly being flogged in the
media across Canada everywhere, and you don't even get a chance to respond. And
when you do get a chance to respond, he don't even call you as a witness.
The
information that I would've gave was unbelievable. The amount of documentation
that I had that I could've gave, and the witnesses that I could've gave, and now
I found not only did I not get a chance to interview, he tells the Management
Commission – Mr. Speaker, you said to me, that's not what he said in there.
Because when I showed you the letter from the lawyer, your words, and I know
you'll stand up to it – now I found out because I didn't get an interview he's
making false statements that I refused, which is not true.
Yet, I
got to stand and take it because I guess I'm the punching bag here. I'm the
punching bag here and got to take it and we got to move on from it, let's get
this over with, but my rights have been violated from day one. From April 25 to
today, my rights are still being violated.
When we
stand up and say we got to bring in a system and we got to have justice, think
about it when you make your vote tonight. You just think about it, that I was
violated from April 25 on when it was brought up in the House of Assembly when
only three people knew about the meeting – the Premier of the province, one of
his senior staff and the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's – and I was in the
House of Assembly here at 1:35 that afternoon. And CBC announced it later that
afternoon, about 1:31, and you think now that someone's rights has been violated
– put yourself in my position.
And then
you get an amendment here from a lawyer, with his past, a professional lawyer,
Leader of the Opposition, who knows that full well with discovery that the
person goes in – imagine going into a discovery and not being able to speak and
not being asked to give your testimony. Just think about that. Just really think
about that. So you're going into a discovery and whoever's doing the discovery
saying we don't want to talk to you. Okay, whatever you says we believe you, but
we're not going to talk to you. Can you imagine that?
It's
just like Syria; someone don't like you, let's leak it to somebody, get your
name out there. Once your name is out there, they'll drag you out and flog you.
Who cares then it's all done. Who cares? That's what's happened here. I just
want to let you all know that I'm a big boy, I can handle it, trust me. I can
handle it but my family – I'm a big boy.
I can
tell you all, this is not finished because, Premier, I've been protecting you
for 5½ months, and I'll make a statement later, Premier, that you probably don't
know about leaked Cabinet, the text, Mr. Premier –
MR. SPEAKER:
Again, I would remind the
Member to please ensure you're addressing your remarks to the Speaker.
Thank
you.
MR. JOYCE:
Sorry.
I've
been protecting you, Premier. I knew this for five-and-a-half months, that the
Member – and I got a call at 11:30 one night, and it's the Member for – one
second now, Premier – Placentia West - Bellevue. I've been protecting you,
Premier, for five months. I know the Member for Placentia West - St. Mary's, and
he called me on a Friday night, 11:30 at night, to talk about the hundreds of
texts he had about Cabinet stuff he's been leaking.
Do you
know why I wouldn't tell anybody? Do you know why I wouldn't tell anybody that?
Because the minute I told the Premier of the Province this here, and if you
check with the Member – and there was a witness there when he was speaking, and
I had a witness there also when I was on – do you know what would've happened?
He would've had to release her from Cabinet and then the whole world would have
said, he's only doing it because it's Eddie Joyce's buddy. That's why I kept it
in for five-and-a-half months. I was trying to protect you, Premier.
Now, if
you want it on the table, I'll put on the table. Not only did I know about the
leaks, I also knew about – and that's not the first time. I can tell you of a
situation with a mayor down in Placentia, what happened there with a contract. I
can tell you, this is not the first time.
I'm not
the first person that's been getting leaked stuff. When I got stuff from people
before, and I mentioned about leaked documents that were going out. I mean, this
is bigger. So I'm not the only one here.
Premier,
when you understand sometimes why I'm getting frustrated, I did it four months
ago to protect – I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, I did it four months ago.
MR. CROSBIE:
A point of order.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition on a point of order.
MR. CROSBIE:
The hon. Member has been
warned and cautioned several times by you, Mr. Speaker, not to be addressing
other Members of the House – in this particular occasion, the Premier. While
government Members may feel some sense of embarrassment to object, I do not. I
think this is out of order, and Mr. Joyce – I'm sorry, the Member should be –
and a ruling should be made.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Given the context of what
we're dealing with, I have been reluctant to do much more than warn the Member
that he needs to address his remarks to me, because the alternative would be to
silence him, and I don't want to do that. But I would ask you, Sir, if you would
please co-operate with me, and I would ask everybody to please co-operate with
myself. I only want to hear from the Member who has been addressed.
The
Member for Humber - Bay of Islands to please continue his remarks to the
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, it's just that
it's seven months pent up and being embarrassed for seven months for no reason.
So I apologize for that.
Mr.
Speaker, that's the information I had for the last six months. That's why I
didn't put it out there because the first thing it involved Eddie Joyce,
everybody is taking care of friends.
To the
caucus, Mr. Speaker, my caucus Members, when I knew about the leaked stuff, when
I got the other documentation, when I finally got it – I think it was June 27,
or July 13 with the code name into it – that's why I didn't bring it up, Mr.
Speaker, because I didn't want to ruin the relationship, and because then it
would cost. So a lot of you over there, the information I had for the last
six-and-a-half months, I was protecting you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Are there any further
speakers to the proposed amendment?
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm not
going to take long, but as an independent Member, obviously, I have to speak for
myself and the people who I represent. That's why whenever there's a bill or a
motion on the floor, even if I don't have a lot to say – sometimes I do have a
lot to say but even if I don't, I always want to at least stand and give my
position on how I'm going to vote because I feel that the people I represent
would expect that, and that's my responsibility.
So
without being repetitive, I will simply say that based on the same principle as
the last report where we tried to increase the penalty from a reprimand to 21
days, I cannot support that amendment for the same reason. We have a process,
albeit there are a lot of problems with the process. We're certainly hearing
that – it's been thrown out there that perhaps all due diligence wasn't done. I
don't know if that's the case or not, because we're only hearing from one side.
There
was an independent firm that was hired, Rubin Thomlinson, to do a report. We had
an independent body in terms of the Commissioner for Legislative Standards who
worked with them to do the report. He came to a conclusion and he came to what
he deemed to be the appropriate penalty based on that report. That's what he was
tasked to do, that's what he did.
I
realize, as I said before, that we have the ability and the right, if we wish,
to accept those recommendations or not to accept them. And we have the right to
impose a stiffer penalty if we wanted to do that. Again, given the fact that I
don't have all the facts, I wasn't involved – I never talked to witnesses, I
wasn't in any of the interviews to know what was right or what was wrong, what
was said and what wasn't said – I have to rely on the Commissioner for
Legislative Standards and the recommendations that he made.
That
does not mean – and I want to say for the record as well, Mr. Speaker. That does
not mean that I am not taking these matters seriously because I absolutely am,
and everybody in this House, I'm sure, are taking these matters seriously. It's
having an impact on everyone in the House, particularly the respondents and the
complainants and their families. It is very serious.
I don't
say this lightly, but I do feel, for the reasons I just gave, that I am not
prepared to go beyond the recommendations made by an independent body when I was
not involved in the process or have all the information. I think it wouldn't be
the responsible thing for me to do.
That's
my opinion. There are other Members, obviously, who disagree because they've
made that motion. I respect their opinion as well, but I cannot support it for
that reason.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Are there any further
speakers to the proposed amendment?
Seeing
none. Is the House ready for the question?
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
MR. SPEAKER:
In my opinion, the –
AN HON. MEMBER:
Division.
MR. SPEAKER:
Division has been called.
I'd ask
the House Leaders and Whips to please call in their Members.
Division
MR. SPEAKER:
I'm looking at everyone,
sensing that we're ready. Correct?
On the
question: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
All
those in favour, please rise.
CLERK (Barnes):
Mr. Crosbie, Mr. Brazil, Ms.
Perry, Mr. Petten, Mr. Lester, Ms. Rogers, Ms. Michael.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against the
amendment, please rise.
CLERK:
Mr. Ball, Ms. Coady, Mr.
Haggie, Ms. Dempster, Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Osborne, Mr. Mitchelmore, Ms.
Gambin-Walsh, Mr. Warr, Mr. Davis, Mr. Edmunds, Ms. Haley, Mr. Letto, Mr.
Browne, Mr. Bragg, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Finn, Mr. Reid, Ms. Parsley, Mr. King, Mr.
Dean, Ms. Pam Parsons, Mr. Holloway, Mr. Lane and Mr. Joyce.
Mr.
Speaker, the ayes 7, the nays 25.
MR. SPEAKER:
The proposed amendment has
been defeated.
We are
now back to debating the main motion, number 5.
The hon.
the Leader of the Third Party.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Going
forward now, I would like to point out, particularly in response to the comments
made by the Minister of Natural Resources, MHA for St. John's West, that
oftentimes, for sure, bullying and harassment is deliberate, and people who do
bully or harass know exactly what they're doing and why they're doing it. That
it's not simply a situation of people aren't aware of their behaviour. It's very
deliberate. It's about a power dynamic, often, or the desire to minimize,
discredit, exclude a person that they may have targeted or have an issue with.
I
support again that the Commissioner for Legislative Standards did not find
specific in each separate account anything that he would find that would justify
finding that any of the respondents have been found guilty of workplace bullying
and harassment.
Again,
as I spoke earlier in our proceedings, I was very concerned in reading all of
the reports, when one looks at all of the reports together that there seems to
be a pattern, a pattern of behaviour that certainly is in violation of the Code
of Conduct, but certainly points to when you look at the accumulation of the
accusations that you would see that they're problematic. They certainly are
problematic.
That's
not how we are handling these five separate motions; that we are looking at them
separately. We're all adults here in this House. We're all very much aware of
what we are doing, what we are saying, when and how we say it, when and how we
do what it is we do. And that we have to be accountable for that. It's not an
issue of not being aware of the impact of our actions. Therefore, we do have to
take responsibility for them.
So, Mr.
Speaker, I'm going to put forth an amendment and it's also about receiving
individualized respectful workplace training. But again, not because somebody
doesn't know the impact of their actions or their words, but that there has to
be a greater understanding of the responsibility and accountability for all that
we say or do, all of us, all of us who are adults here, and very much aware of
the role that we play and the expectations that are placed on us.
I would
like to put forth this amendment to the motion, and the resolution regarding the
Member for Humber - Bay of Islands, the report concerning him.
I move,
seconded by the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi, that the resolution
respecting the report of the Commissioner for Legislative Standards of October
18, 2018 be amended immediately after the words “Humber - Bay of Islands” by
inserting the phrase “receive individualized respectful workplace training and”.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
This
House stands in recess while we determine the amendment.
Thank
you.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Regarding the amendment proposed by the Member for St. John's Centre, I do find
that the amendment is in order and we will now continue with debate on the
amendment. I'd ask the Member to please start the debate with her remarks.
Thank
you.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Once
again, we are debating the motion and the recommendation of the Commissioner for
Legislative Standards where he found that the Member for Humber Valley, in fact,
was found in violation of Principle 10.
MR. JOYCE:
Humber - Bay of Islands.
MS. ROGERS:
Bay of Islands. I'm very
sorry, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to retract that. That was very careless on my part.
That the
Member for Humber - Bay of Islands was found in violation of Principle 10 of the
Code of Conduct, which we all must adhere to. It's the Code of Conduct for
Members of the House of Assembly.
Principle 10 reads: “Relationships between Members and government employees
should be professional and based upon mutual respect and should have regard to
the duty of those employees to remain politically impartial when carrying out
their duties.”
I would
like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, once again that the amendment, which calls for
individualized respectful workplace training for the Member, is also about
helping the Member to move forward, and, hopefully, helping all of us in this
House to move forward. Again, we are all responsible for our actions and for our
behaviour, for our words and must take responsibility and accountability for
those.
I would
think, Mr. Speaker, that executing this particular, should it pass, amendment
would be in your hands as Speaker of the House. I would imagine there would be
some work on looking at best practices and what would be most effective and
helpful in this process for all of us to be able to move on, and that would
include who, what, where, when, how much. I would hope that it would be
something that would be taken seriously, and that it would be, again, something
that would be helpful in the process of moving forward.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Are
there further speakers to the amendment?
The hon.
the Member for the District of Humber - Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just on
a side note, did you have a chance to respond to that letter that you can
respond to – that I need response that you were at the meeting? Will you be
responding to that before – and I'll speak to the amendment (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Earlier? No, I have not
responded yet, but I will undertake to do so. I don't anticipate a response
today.
MR. JOYCE:
(Inaudible) anticipate a
response the day before the vote is taken? You don't?
I have
rights, Mr. Speaker, in this House of Assembly. One of the rights – and you know
what was said in that meeting, Sir. You know what was said, and you can stand up
right now and verify what was said, Sir.
I do
have rights as a Member, and I expect those rights. You swore, Mr. Speaker, that
you would uphold the rights of this House of Assembly. My rights are being
violated again. I just got to put that on the record, Mr. Speaker.
Now,
I'll go back to the amendment that the Member just made, and I find it – I can
understand what she's doing, but I just got to read something in
Hansard what she said that Thursday,
April 26.
You want
to talk about bullying and harassment? This is what the Member said. She didn't
apologize earlier.
So, Mr.
Speaker, here is what she said: “Mr.
Speaker, as a woman and as an elected Member of the House, I am appalled at the
behaviour of the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands to publicly name those who
have complained of
harassment by him, further victimizing them. This vengeful tactic is not at all
acceptable, and I am furious at this Member for Humber - Bay of Islands and his
total disrespect for this House, for our MHAs and for the people of the
province.
“I ask
the Premier what is he going to do ….” Are you going to join me in that bullying
and harassment workshop? Because that went all across the province. Just
imagine, you saying that –
MR. SPEAKER:
Again, I remind the Member to
please address your comments to the Speaker.
MR. JOYCE:
I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker.
Just
imagine, Mr. Speaker, that went all across the province. A false statement went
all across the province. It victimized me because it said that I put the names
out there, which I didn't do, and this is the Member who just made about
bullying and harassment. She bullied and harassed me that day putting a false
statement all across Canada, but now she's standing up: oh, we got to get
bullying and harassment training. Are you going to join me? I ask, do you think
she should join me, Mr. Speaker?
This is
the kind of hypocrisy that's here. I have to make it quite clear, Mr. Speaker,
once again. They're professionals, Rubin Thomlinson found no allegations. There
was no foundation to the allegations of bullying and harassment. Absolutely
none. Absolutely none.
When
Bruce Chaulk hired that group, he hired that group because they were the
professionals, and when those professionals came out and said there was no
bullying and harassment, he veered off. He veered off, and when he veered off he
said, oh, I got to find something.
Do you
know something, Mr. Speaker? Do you know something? When you talk about this
here and you said, oh, he should do this training, how about if you – I'm going
to speak later, Mr. Speaker, where texts, where I'm going to get a smack up the
side of the head; yet, I got to take the bullying training. How about where FFS
about me, but I got to take the bullying and harassment training.
Mr.
Speaker, you can see why I get frustrated with it. I'm still waiting for the
Member, the Leader of the Third Party to stand and apologize, because she always
asks other people to apologize when they make a false and erroneous statement. I
know the Member is not going to apologize, but she'll stand up and say, oh,
everybody else should do this, but it's all right for me, I don't need to do any
of this; I don't need to do it. But, Mr. Speaker,
Hansard is there and that's what the
Member said.
So when
people vote, just remember that the Member for St. John's Centre put this in and
here's what she said April 26, all across Canada, as if I did something wrong.
She bullied me, she harassed me. She made false statements, Mr. Speaker, yet she
won't stand in her chair to apologize.
MR. SPEAKER:
Are there further speakers to
the amendment?
Is the
House ready for the question?
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion of the amendment? I am sorry; let
me rephrase: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
We are
now back to the main debate of a motion, Motion 5, as amended.
I now
recognize the Minister for Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, the Public
Service Commission is committed to and responsible for oversight of and policy
for merit-based appointments and promotions within the public service of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
I was
elected on November 30, 2015 to represent the people of the District of
Placentia - St. Mary's, to advocate for and on behalf of them in a respectful
manner. I was elected to be their voice and I will continue to do my job.
Mr.
Speaker, I love my job, but I am now going to take the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador on a journey. I met the MHA for Humber - Bay of Islands in 2015. I
was sitting in the House of Assembly gallery, just up there in the last row
watching the proceedings. He came up after Question Period and he introduced
himself. I researched him and I realized that he was one of the most experienced
politicians in the Liberal caucus.
Once I
was elected, I got to know him better, as we were both Cabinet Ministers.
Initially, we got along really well. We had a good working relationship. I had a
lot of respect for him, as he was a senior politician and I was a junior. I had
been in politics for two weeks when I was appointed a Cabinet minister. I looked
up to him and I often asked him for advice. He had a compassionate side, and I
admired that. We were a team and you trust your team.
He often
would encourage, coach me and others through Question Period. I'm not a heckler,
Mr. Speaker, and you know that. I clap, I hit the desk, and I occasionally say
something if I feel what the Opposition or the Third Party is saying is wrong or
not necessary. I prepare my notes in advance and I try not to repeat myself, as
everything is recorded in Hansard.
To say
that I am disappointed and disheartened by what has happened is an
understatement. The MHA for Humber - Bay of Islands was the minister of
Municipal and Environment and Fire and Emergency Services. As the minister for
Municipal Affairs many would argue that he was one of the most powerful
ministers in the Cabinet, for a rural Member of this House of Assembly.
Significant dollars flow from the Department of Municipal Affairs into rural
Newfoundland and Labrador for capital works projects, federal-provincial
cost-shared projects, special assistance grant projects, and fire and emergency
services. He was the minister who had the final sign-off on the funding.
I am the
Minister of Service NL, minister of workplace health and safety, the Minister
Responsible for the Government Purchasing Agency, and I thank the Premier for
entrusting me with this portfolio.
As
Members of the House of Assembly, we take an oath to follow the Code of Conduct.
We are responsible to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are expected
to respect the law and acknowledge our need to maintain the public trust placed
in us by performing our duties with accessibility, accountability, courtesy,
honesty and integrity.
The
behaviour of the MHA for Humber - Bay of Islands toward me that the public
hadn't seen was making it very difficult for me to fulfill my commitment and
responsibilities to my constituents, but I was working through it. I was
tolerating it and, regardless of the atmosphere, I was getting the work done.
Mr.
Speaker, I don't dislike the MHA for Humber - Bay of Islands. However, the MHA
has exhibited patterns of behaviour toward me that I felt were of manipulation
and he refused to acknowledge that his behaviour was inappropriate when
confronted and given the opportunity to address it. Thus, I believed that he
undermined the integrity of this House of Assembly.
It is
our duty as elected officials to endeavour to prevent conflicts of interest and
to take reasonable steps to resolve conflict quickly. An attempt was made to
resolve a conflict between myself and the MHA by meeting with the chief of staff
and the MHA on the 8th floor of the East Block. The chief of staff enabled us to
put a process in place that had the potential to work, but within days this
attempt was dismissed by the MHA.
Mr.
Speaker, Commissioner Bruce Chaulk has found that the conduct of the MHA for
Humber - Bay of Islands is in fact a violation of Principle 10 of the Code of
Conduct. That violation is that the MHA had requested that I step in as a
minister and interfere with the hiring process of the Public Service Commission,
that I influence a process that is legislated.
Principle 10 reads: “Relationships between Members and government employees
should be professional and based upon mutual respect and should have regard to
the duty of those employees to remain politically impartial when carrying out
their duties.”
This is
the incident that's seemed to bring our working relationship to a breaking
point, and which resulted in the Member becoming even more difficult to work
with.
On
Saturday, April 8 at 4:05 p.m., when I was at home, I received an email from the
MHA requesting that I call him. I waited approximately 20 minutes after
receiving the email before I phoned him. I didn't want to phone him. My husband
was in the kitchen with me, I told him who had emailed me, and I said, he is mad
with me, I know he is, but I got to phone him, he is a minister.
I
remember this and how I felt with clarity. I was anxious about having this
conversation with the MHA, for fear it was going to be about what I thought it
was going to be about, and it was. My husband went to the living room and I
phoned the MHA on my personal phone from the kitchen.
The MHA
had a friend that had applied for an Occupational Health and Safety management
position, and he wanted me, as the minister responsible for Occupational Health
and Safety, to make sure that his friend got that job. Deputy ministers are
responsible for hiring as per the Public Service Commission policies, not
ministers. It was useless to remind the MHA this. He didn't want to hear it.
I did
check on this position a number of times, asking about the status of this job,
as the MHA continued to ask me about it. He said, the crew over there will get
their buddy in, who they wanted, and that his friend was qualified for the
position and he should get it.
At one
point when checking on the position, I was told that the job was posted,
interviews would be completed and the board would advise him on their
recommendation. Eventually, after repeatedly asking about the posting and in
response to repeated requests from the MHA, I was told that the recommendation
had come forward. It was being accepted, and the individual will be contacted,
and it was not the applicant I was inquiring about. The applicant that I was
inquiring about was not qualified.
I told
the MHA that the applicant was not qualified for the position. The MHA was not
happy about this and he was very persistent by saying go back and tell them
that's who you want. Yes, you can do it, you're the minister. Mr. Speaker, I
would like to table the public employment opportunity for this managerial
position.
Mr.
Speaker, I am the minister responsible for workplace health safety, and on April
the 26 Workplace Newfoundland and Labrador reported on the workplace injury
rate. The good news that day was for the third consecutive year the lost-time
incident rate due to workplace injury or illness in Newfoundland and Labrador
had remained at an all-time low of 1.5 per 100 workers, which is among the
lowest in Canada. But the sad news was we had experienced five fatalities in the
province.
The job
of an Occupational Health and Safety manager is a very important job. It is
imperative that the individual hired in such a position be qualified with an
Occupational Health and Safety background.
When the
MHA was back in his district, he found out that another person had been given
the position, and this is when he emailed me to phone him. On April 8, I phoned
the MHA and he was made with me on the phone. I was on my phone in the kitchen
of our house in North Harbour. My husband was close by in the living room.
The MHA
was upset with me for not getting the DM to hire the applicant that he wanted
hired. I felt intimidated by him when he said: that's fine, I'll be following
the rules, too, from now on. He said that a couple of times, and he also said,
don't you worry – not in a confronting way, but in an intimidating tone.
I
continued to try and explain to him that the applicant was not qualified and the
proper protocol for hiring was followed. The conversation got heated, and he
continued to argue that I should have hired the applicant. I couldn't take it
anymore, so as my husband was entering the kitchen, I hung up the phone on the
MHA.
My
husband was a little taken aback by what he had heard and witnessed as he came
into the kitchen. He asked me what had happened. I said he wanted me to hire
someone who was not qualified. I was upset. I didn't want my husband, my
daughter or my son to see me, so I went into the bedroom. My son is an
individual with autism. When I get upset, he gets upset, and I could not let him
see me.
I was
genuinely worried about the files in Municipal Affairs for my district that the
MHA had control over as the minister. My concern was that he would retaliate
against me through the prejudice of the people of my district. I composed myself
and returned to the kitchen. I picked up my phone and I told my husband that I
was messaging the Premier's chief of staff about what had just happened. I said
if I don't message him right now I won't, and who knows what could happen to my
district.
As the
chief of staff, I figured he could help with the issue between colleagues. I
seldom messaged for help, but when I did in the past he had addressed my concern
swiftly and successfully. I wanted this resolved. I wanted the MHA to stop
behaving in this manner. I felt like he was bullying me and intimidating me. I
messaged the chief of staff, I didn't want to bother the Premier at that time.
On April
11, at 12:48 a.m. through text, I told another MHA that I had contacted the
chief of staff about this MHA and that I was meeting with the chief of staff and
the MHA that following morning. We met as scheduled. It was not an official
meeting, but a meeting between colleagues. I made it clear in that meeting that
it was evident that the MHA did not understand that his behaviour was
inappropriate as he continued to be manipulative in his behaviour in the
meeting.
He spoke
about messages between him and myself where I was nice to him. He said he had
every message between us and would show them all to the chief of staff. He
talked low and kept asking me to tell him of one incident where he had kept
monies from my district. He would put his finger up as one and say tell me one,
tell me one.
He said
I had embarrassed him by him finding out that someone else had gotten the job,
while he was home in his district. He did not appear to remember that I had
repeatedly told him the process that had to be followed and that I could not
cause his friend to be hired. The chief of staff put a plan in place to enable
us to work together, but within days it fell apart.
I left
the eighth floor and went back to work in the department. I told two people
about the attempt to address my concerns regarding the MHA's behaviour and that
I had been up to the eighth floor. I was still hoping that the MHA would just
stop behaving this way. I wanted this resolved, and I wanted it resolved
internally.
Trying
to influence the hiring of a friend into an executive government position is
wrong and illegal. That afternoon the Official Opposition brought up bullying in
the House of Assembly.
I knew
another MHA had experienced a similar situation with the MHA from Humber - Bay
of Islands. I knew, because I witnessed a scene right here in this House of
Assembly where the MHA had belittled another MHA and then that MHA had passed me
outside the House with their coat on, going outside for a break. The MHA was
visibly upset and said they had had enough as they passed by me. I stopped but
the MHA proceeded down the hall that day and I went into the caucus room.
The
night of April 24, I messaged the chief of staff and asked for a meeting with
the Premier. The chief of staff responded and the meeting was scheduled between
myself and the Premier. A staff member from the eighth floor attended the
meeting. I lodged a verbal complaint with the Premier against the MHA for Humber
- Bay of Islands on April 25 and the staff member present recorded it.
I asked
the Premier, for the fist time, to please deal with the MHA's behaviour. I told
him about some other incidents that I had seen and was aware of. I wanted the
Premier to stop what was happening, and he did.
The role
of the Public Service Commission is based on the Merit Principles. “Merit is a
rule of conduct that provides for the recommendation of candidates for a
position on the basis of … qualifications, knowledge, abilities and personal
suitability.
“Merit
in staffing is achieved through practices that are seen to be fair, equitable
and transparent.
“Fairness means decisions are made objectively, free from bias, patronage or
nepotism. Practices reflect the just treatment of all employees and applicants.
Equity means equal access to employment opportunities.”
Bullying
is a significant workplace problem; 40 per cent of Canadian workers experience
bullying on a weekly basis. In all cases, it is a form of power struggle. Its
causes, however, have received little systemic attention beyond analysis of the
personality attributes of bullies.
The
inter-player relational powerlessness and organizational chaos gives rise to
bullying. There is a need for organizations to eliminate chaos; chaos that
creates openings for abuse of power.
Mr.
Speaker, this investigation was not completed under oath and I believe it should
have been. The process that I have had to endure over the past seven months has
been excruciating. It has caused me a financial burden and my family has been
exposed to the darker side of politics. I want to see this process changed. I
know that together the Members of this House of Assembly can work
collaboratively to change this process.
Mr.
Speaker, at this time I would like to thank the Members of this House of
Assembly for your support. I want to thank my family and my friends for their
unlimited support, and I would also like to highlight how Equal Voice National
has been valuable to myself, two present colleagues and one former colleague.
As
politicians, we work long hours away from our families. My family often asks me
why I would want this job. I want this job because it allows me to effect
change, policies and procedures that can truly make a positive difference for
the people of this province. I believe that I'm a strong female politician, and
I generally enjoy helping and serving others.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
I recognize the Member for
Humber - Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand
here in defence, the first time I had the opportunity in almost six-and-a-half
months. I always said one thing, Mr. Speaker, sometimes when you say it, it
don't mean it's true. I will go through this process.
I'll
just give you an indication, Mr. Speaker. I can go through this report. I could
say at least 20 to 25 people who would deny what's in this report. So it's not
just me. It's not just me.
I heard
the Member, and I did just so – I stepped out so you wouldn't feel that I was
going to be looking or anything, so I gave you that courtesy to do that. But
there's one thing, when I heard she met with myself and the chief of staff on
April 11, I think it was. Do you know one thing she forgot though? Someone
contacted media that night. There are only three people knew. When I got the
report from the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune, she said I knew about it
because April 11 the media – CBC contacted me April 11.
So
that's the kind of stuff that's not in that, but when you get the other report –
so when it was leaked out that night, what was that for? To try and embarrass
me, and that was right in her own response from the Member for Fortune Bay -
Cape La Hune. The meeting that you had on April 25 with the Premier, three
people knew – yourself, the Premier and the senior staff member – yet the
Opposition knew.
Did
anybody think how did they find out? And then even in the report, you mentioned
that Joy Buckle took notes, and then when you went to the Commission you said
the notes that Joy Buckle took were wrong. You disputed Joy Buckle's notes. I
can go through it on a regular basis, just some of the allegations: I took $30
million, the Vale money, and the rumour is we spent it on the West Coast.
That was
brought up in Cabinet. The Premier brought that up in Cabinet when we talked
once about Vale, how there was some group that said they should've been part of
the decision making. The Minister of Natural Resources put an email in there
saying that we didn't even receive the money; we were waiting to start the
process to get the money. That's the facts. But when you put in there saying I
took this money, and I leveraged federal money, spent it on the West Coast, that
means the Minister of Transportation and Works, who's chair of infrastructure,
was in on it. That means the Minister of Transportation was in on it. I mean,
that's the kind of stuff that's in this report that's just totally false.
When the
Member stated in her thing with the Cabinet, that she never told caucus that she
filed a complaint, like I could start – there's no need to do it, but I could
name the people that gave me their names that I was going to give as witnesses
that it wasn't true, she actually said it. But in this report, it gives the
impression that someone in Cabinet, Mr. Speaker, leaked her name, and it wasn't
even me. I won't say who the person was who spoke it in Cabinet, but it wasn't
me. So when I come down here – and I can go through this report.
The job,
I have to speak about that job, Mr. Speaker. I have to speak about the job. I
know the parliamentary assistant, the Member, I gave the resume probably
September. That's the evidence. This job never even came up until November. This
person, if I was called as a witness, this person applied through the portal. He
applied through the portal. He found out the first week in January he never even
got an interview. Yet, I was harassing.
Mr.
Speaker, do you notice on everything that's said, there are no witnesses.
Anything that there are witnesses or documentation, it's proven false – it's
proven false. Everything that's said in here except just me and the Member,
that's the only thing that Bruce Chaulk – everything else, every other
allegation in this here that was made against me, the composting facility,
apparently I was intentionally not doing that – why don't you talk about the
meeting that you had with –?
MR. SPEAKER:
Again, I remind the Member to
address their remarks to the Speaker.
MR. JOYCE:
Sorry, Mr. Speaker.
So when
you talk about the job – the person in the Human Resources Secretariat, never
contacted. Deputy minister, never contacted. Bruce Hollett, I asked him – I
asked the chair of the Public Service Commission to do an investigation. He
didn't have time to do a proper investigation. He came back in the report, he
said there has been no concerns or any concerns raised about the job. That's the
chair. I asked for an investigation. So does anybody here think that if I
thought that I interfered either with the screening or with the deputy minister
that I would even ask to do an investigation?
Sean
Dutton, who I have a lot of respect for, too bad he's dragged in to this – I
never spoke to Sean Dutton. So from January – and this is what I would have
asked Bruce Chaulk – from the first week in January to April 8 – you know
something? That job was gone February 13. Gone, February 13, awarded. But all
this happened in April that I tried to go back and tell buddy he's not getting
hired now, and tell him to cancel. That's just wrong; it's just wrong. It just
never happened.
Mr.
Speaker, the other thing about it I'll mention, and I have to put this out
there, I'm supposed to be harassing and bullying. Guess what? March 6, two of us
went on an eight-hour trip together down in Placentia. Eight hours together.
Dropped me off 1:30 at my apartment, thank you very much, had a great day, and
there were even Members over there next day where she was teasing me about a
card, gave me a gift because everybody down there loved me. And I know there are
Members over there that teased me and carrying on, joking what a great trip we
had. That was March 6. How many times was the job brought up during that
eight-hour trip? You know how many? Zero. You know why? It was done; it was
never discussed.
Do you
know how many times I mentioned that job, Mr. Speaker, when I dropped off the
resume to the Member, he handed it in? The person applied, I said, look, there
is someone applying for a job, anything you can do; if not, keep his resume on
file. That was it. When he never got the job, I said, b'y, anything pops up, let
me know. That was it. At no time did I ever speak to Sean Dutton, at no time did
I ever speak.
Mr.
Speaker, do you notice in the report I spoke to the minister three times? But
Sean Dutton said she spoke to him six or seven times. It wasn't me. It was made
up. I did not ask her to go see a report, and the only time I ever seen this
report that she's talking about was April 11. The job is gone in February, two
months' prior. I didn't even know what she was talking about.
The
other thing of interest, it was the compost. That's what caused this. It was the
compost facility; that I wouldn't cancel the environment assessment. I said
that, and I made that known to people on the other side. And when she went to
meet with the staff, when the minister met with the staff, the comments were
made, oh, the Tories will be in in a year's time, makes no difference anyway, or
the Premier's going to wear this. And then it was brought back to her and said
these comments are inappropriate. That wasn't me. I wasn't even at the meeting.
She said that to the staff, yet I'm the bully. I'm the bully on all this.
Mr.
Speaker, the other thing, when you go through each one, even the PSC, there was
four witnesses said that, and made up this drama, how she was scared. She
might've been scared but not of me. I had to ask staff, don't go out because
Eddie's mad. There are four witnesses. She even asked for additional witness
that came in and said there was nothing to this. That wasn't done or said. But
everything is, the drama part, just to build up, but it never happened. It just
never happened. And even with the job, Mr. Speaker, and I'll say again, anybody
opposite ever handed in their resume, say b'ys, anything you can do, anything
pops up, summer student or something, it's normal. It's normal.
But if I
start calling Sean Dutton, then I would say there's a problem. I'll even read
what Rubin Thomlinson said. I'll even read what Rubin Thomlinson said about
that. And Mr. Speaker, this is telling. Here's what Rubin Thomlinson said:
“However, I was struck by language used by the Complainant herself to describe
many of their interactions on this matter, that such behaviour is what they do,
trying to get their points across whenever they have a moment in front of
someone. Accordingly, I'm not sure that MHA Joyce knew, or ought to have known,
that calling the complainant about the hiring process would have been unwelcome
by her” because she did it herself.
And
that's what Rubin Thomlinson – experts, and then the next paragraph Bruce Chaulk
jumps in and goes on. And you know who else wasn't called for a witness, Mr.
Speaker? You know who else wasn't called? The person who applied for the job. He
would've said he applied through the portal; he never got an interview. First
week in January he said it: I never got an interview. I said: B'y, anything pops
up, I'll see what I can do. That was it. That was it.
Yet,
this big drama about me phoning April 8. Do you know why I phoned April 8? I did
call her April 8, no doubt. Three issues, Sir: That she never gave me a heads-up
on the job, which was done because the person never started. I did say you
should have gave me a heads-up. Even the deputy minister said that I asked for a
heads-up when the person was starting so I could call them and welcome them
aboard and all that. That's common. We do it all the time.
How many
Members across do I give a heads-up to when there's an announcement made in
their district? Even the Opposition, an announcement is going to be made and
it's going to be capital works or if there's some funding for the fire
department, give you a heads-up so you can make the call so you'll know. How
many? Every one of you. We did it. It's courtesy.
The
second thing I called for was we had to go down and meet with the town council
for the swimming pool. We had to meet with the town. We had something in place –
the funding, to see if they were going to borrow the funding and the minister
was going to go down in the district for funding.
The
third reason was the compost. I did say you got to play by the rules, and I'll
tell you why, Mr. Speaker. I had a text, and it's in the report: you better
cancel that GD compost. That's a Minister of the Crown that said that to me.
The
second thing, I had it under good information, which was confirmed in evidence
later from a mayor, that the minister was encouraging towns to put letters in
against the environment. An independent process, encouraging towns to put
letters in against the process, against me, against the process in government.
So, Mr.
Speaker, that's what I said. When I said that – I did say it: you got to start
playing by the rules. Let the process go.
The
other thing that's interesting, Mr. Speaker, the text that was sent from the
minister to Greg Mercer, she would never give it to me. Rubin Thomlinson never
got it. No one ever got it. You don't know what was said. This is the other
telling thing that's in the report – that if I had the chance.
Do you
know who asked for that meeting, Mr. Speaker? Do you know who asked for that
meeting with Greg Mercer? It was me. Do you know why? Because what I was told is
that I made threats about cancelling the swimming pool and other things and I
wanted to get it on the record that that never happened. I wanted to sit down
face to face and say tell me what you said. How can you say that when it never
happened? I was the one. So this idea that the Member stands up and says: Well,
it was Greg Mercer. I asked for that meeting. I officially asked for the
meeting.
One of
the things that was brought up is that I was going to cancel the swimming pool.
That was one of the things that was brought up, I was going to cancel the
funding for the swimming pool. I laughed, I said is this serious? Do you know
why I laughed? Because a week later we approved the extra million dollars in
Cabinet that she sat around. Then she said: oh, that's right, I remember that
now.
That was
one of the things that I was supposed to have done. Then she remembered she was
in Cabinet, the minister, when we approved the final money for it. That's the
allegation that I made. The other thing is the capital works. And I said what?
What are you talking about?
Now, you
got to realize this was April. Do you know when the capital works were sent up?
When I mentioned this, do you know when it was sent up? March 31. All the
recommendations that were made were sent up, were already sent up, yet – which I
never saw the text that I made a threat that I was going to cancel all that.
Even if I wanted to, I couldn't do it. I couldn't do it.
Mr.
Speaker, just take another one. Do you know one of the other allegations they
made? I didn't explain capital works good enough. Two years prior, a Minister of
the Crown who goes through an $8 billion budget, I didn't explain the $1.8
million – $800,000 was already spent, because we had a meeting with the Town of
Placentia and they were going to use that money and leverage this here for the
swimming pool – $1 million. The minister already did it two years prior, Mr.
Speaker, but I didn't explain capital works good enough; therefore, it looked
like I was intentionally withholding information. That's one of the allegations
against me.
When you
go through it all, when you go through the four or five witnesses that SPC said:
that never happened. When you go through – when it was said that she never told
caucus, and I had 10 Members who said, yeah, we heard it. That's 15 who said
things were wrong. And I wouldn't cancel the compost going through an
environmental assessment process, I was doing it just to get back at her for the
job. That's what was said in the report. I intentionally would not cancel the
compost because I was getting mad at the job.
SPC – I
know a few people here who spoke up, some never but a few. SPC said the only
reason why I made a statement to SPC is because someone never got the job three
months earlier. How foolish is that, three months earlier. The minister even
asked for another witness, a staff member. The staff member came in and said,
no, there was nothing happened there; nothing to it. So that's another one.
How many
more do you need to go through, Mr. Speaker, that you realize that a lot of the
statements were made and the only thing he went on where there was no
documentation. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, at no time did I interfere with
that job. At no time did I ever phone Sean Dutton, and it's in the report. I
never ever contacted Sean Dutton. I never ever contacted the person who did the
screening out. Just to let everybody know, this person got screened out, but
apparently four months later I was still trying to pressure her to get the job.
This guy got screened out. He never even got an interview; yet, I pressured back
in April for not getting a job. That's the kind of stuff, Mr. Speaker.
There
are other things here that I can keep going through, Mr. Speaker, on a regular
basis. Once I pick it up to show – even when Greg Mercer put information in,
Greg Mercer put in information that contradicted the minister. Joy Buckle put
information in that contradicted the minister. So every bit of information that
was put in there and documentation, and witnesses, contradicted the minister.
The only
thing that I apparently – I have to get this straight. In her statement April 8:
oh, I knew what it was about; I knew it was the job and I was scared. Guess
what? We were on an eight-hour trip down in Placentia, it was never brought up.
That was three months prior. The job was gone, over with. But to make this seem:
oh, I was nervous; I knew that's what he was calling for. She didn't have a clue
about that job because that job was gone. That job was gone. I got to get the
facts out there because that just shows to me, Mr. Speaker, the information that
she was putting out there.
Mr.
Speaker, how about the response? I ask anybody in this hon. House – the Mayor of
Placentia, for eff sake, I can't believe a word Eddie Joyce says. Now that's my
colleague behind my back, March 20. That's my colleague saying that.
Then
later on in the text you say, working well. Oh, I feels like giving Eddie a
smack up the side of the head. As soon as I get the millions he's going to get
some smack. Guess what? The pool was announced. I got the smack didn't I? I'm
going to say, I'm the bully here? I'm the one that's going to be here for a job
with a Member putting that down, making a threat. If it's not a physical threat,
it's a threat that you're going to get me. And, sure enough, the pool was
announced when it was in the budget.
You ask
anybody on the infrastructure committee, who pushed for the money with the pool?
It was me, because it was a worthwhile project for down in the town – and put
allegations in there that I was against the pool, I didn't work with the pool.
We had numerous meetings. Staff and the infrastructure committee will confirm
that I walked in and said, boys, we got to try to get this pool done.
The same
one up in Happy Valley-Goose Bay at same time, get extra money from the
infrastructure committee; yet, in there I tried to stop it. I hindered it, all
because someone never got a job. That's the kind of stuff that's in here, Mr.
Speaker. So when you vote here tonight, just remember who got bullied here.
Mr.
Speaker, because if I ever sent out a text, and I pick anybody here. If I ever
sent out a text saying you're going to get some smack up the side of the head,
and then all of a sudden I made a threat against you and I followed through.
What do you think? Seriously, and that's right in to the major. That's what she
said. She's going to give me some smack up the side of the head, and she did.
I'll
just go through it, Mr. Speaker. I'll just pick a few things – my few minutes
left, Mr. Speaker. I'll just pick a few more things. I'll just pick any one of
it, Mr. Speaker.
Just to
talk about another thing, is that the whole job situation, Mr. Speaker, and when
there was a job. Do you know what I'd suggest? Ask the Public Service Commission
to do an investigation to see if I contacted anybody. I think they already did.
I'm confident, 100 per cent, there was never a call made. There was never, ever
a call made, Mr. Speaker.
I can go
through the number of inaccuracies here. I say to the Premier, you know and I
know that we agreed to mediation that Wednesday. The minister asked for
mediation. Does anybody know that, asked for mediation that Wednesday? I
reluctantly (inaudible) and he said: Well, okay, let's do it. There's an issue;
let's do it. We agreed to mediation until it was brought up on the House of
Assembly floor that afternoon. That's when that was off. The Premier knows. His
hands were tied then because then he had to move it on. That's what it was.
The
complaints that were made when we agreed to mediation, not one of those
complaints are in this report. Every one of these complaints – and Joy Buckle's
testimony, and the Premier's was at the meeting, the compost was never brought
up as an issue at the meeting, the swimming pool was never brought up at the
meeting and neither was the job because the job was a dead issue, it was done,
over with, it was never, ever brought up, and that was confirmed by the minutes
that Joy Buckle presented as evidence, and her own testimony that it was never
brought up.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Member's time has expired.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Are
there any further speakers to the motion, as amended, Motion 5?
Seeing
none, is the House ready for the question?
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the amended Motion 5?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Division.
MR. SPEAKER:
Division has been called.
The
House Leaders, Whips, please signify your Members. I think everybody is here.
Division
MR. SPEAKER:
House Leaders ready? I'm
looking for a signal, yes.
On the
question, is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amended Motion 5?
All
those in favour of the motion, please rise.
CLERK:
Mr. Ball, Ms. Coady, Mr. Haggie, Ms. Dempster, Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Osborne, Mr.
Mitchelmore, Ms. Gambin-Walsh, Mr. Warr, Mr. Davis, Mr. Edmunds, Ms. Haley, Mr.
Letto, Mr. Browne, Mr. Bragg, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Finn, Mr. Reid, Ms. Parsley, Mr.
King, Mr. Dean, Ms. Pam Parsons, Mr. Holloway, Ms. Rogers, Ms. Michael, Mr.
Lane.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against the amended
Motion 5, please rise.
CLERK:
Mr. Crosbie, Mr. Brazil, Ms.
Perry, Mr. Petten, Mr. Lester, Mr. Joyce.
Mr.
Speaker, the ayes: 26; the nays: 6.
MR. SPEAKER:
The motion, as amended, is
passed.
The hon.
the Deputy Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Motion –
MR. SPEAKER:
Excuse me.
As just
directed by the House, I would now ask that the Member for Humber - Bay of
Islands stand in his place in this House of Assembly and apologize to this
Assembly for the failure and violation as cited by the report of the
Commissioner for Legislative Standards, as of October 18, 2018.
The hon.
the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
I apologize.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Motion 6.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. The Deputy
Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Health and Community Services, the following
resolution:
WHEREAS
in accordance with subsection 38(1) of the
House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, the
Commissioner for Legislative Standards has submitted a report respecting his
opinion on a matter referred to him under the authority of subsection 36(1) of
that act;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly concur in the report of
October 19, 2018.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader to start the debate.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think
it has been a challenging day for everyone in this House. As a matter of fact,
Mr. Speaker, I would go as far as to say it's been a challenging time for quite
the last six months of this discourse and debate that we've been having
concerning the issues around the Code of Conduct, harassment, bullying and
intimidation.
I say to
the House and I say to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that it has been
trying and we have, as a House, admitted that we must make some changes to the
process, Mr. Speaker. We've been talking quite a bit about how the process has
been challenging and difficult for those involved in these interactions, and
indeed for all of us in this House.
So, I'm
glad to see the work that's been done and quite a bit of work that's been done
by many of this hon. House, all parties have been involved in the discussions
around how we can change the process in the Privileges and Elections Committee.
I thank them for their ongoing work. I'm sure, in the very near future, we'll be
able to have a better and more improved process.
For the
sake of the people who may be listening, or may be watching, there has been an
interim process. Back in, I believe it was June, the House management committee
did put in place an interim process while we await the outcomes of the
Privileges and Elections Committee, Mr. Speaker. We, as the management
committee, put in an interim process that follows along with what the government
has put in place for civil servants, the public service, which was a pretty
leading edge. It was developed in consultation with Rubin Thomlinson who is one
of the foremost leaders in the country on this very issue. I know that that has
been a robust system that was put in place.
But, Mr.
Speaker, we find ourselves here today and this evening, it's getting late, but
we have been dealing with the reports that the Commissioner has brought before
the House as part of the process that we had to follow under the
House of Assembly Accountability,
Integrity and Administration Act. We followed that process because, as the
Commissioner advised us yesterday. There's one of four ways the Commissioner
does get involved, one of which he can initiate his own investigation, and which
he had done based on some of the questions that were asked on the floor of this
House of Assembly back in early spring of this year.
Mr.
Speaker, we're dealing with what the outcome is of his investigations. As he
told us yesterday, he did ask Rubin Thomlinson – as whom I said was probably one
of the foremost companies involved with dealing with workplace harassment and
bullying in the country. He did ask for their involvement and they had been part
of the process, the Commissioner advised this House yesterday. Integral to the
process, I believe, were his words, Mr. Speaker, in that they followed their
process and their patterns.
We now
find ourselves in the House today going through each of these reports, taking
our time, ensuring that we have given adequate time for review, adequate time
for questions and discussion and investigation so that we do get this using the
process that we have before us today. We give it as best process as we can, and
looking forward to that improvement.
I say to
all of us, I will again say, because I think it bears repeating, because the
more we repeat, the more we say this – I think it's very, very important – we
should have a zero tolerance always on harassment, bullying, intimidation, abuse
of any kind. And I think it's incumbent upon everyone in this House to continue
to work toward that end of ensuring zero tolerance.
Mr.
Speaker, I would, as I take my seat, and allow the discussion and debate on the
resolution to commence fully, allow people the time to have comments regarding
the report and regarding the outcomes of what both Rubin Thomlinson and the
Commissioner have come forward with.
I would
like to say to the people who have been through this process, both the
complainants, I guess there are several on this side of the House and others on
the other side of the House, that they are effecting societal change, because
bringing these things to the fore, bringing these things in the open is
important, so we can shine a bright light on what is important deliberations and
important behaviours.
I think
it is a good thing when we can reflect upon the Code of Conduct for this House
that we all swear to and ensure we are held to that standard. So I thank
everyone for their part in the process, having gone through that, and I thank
the Commissioner for his deliberations. He said yesterday it was not easy on him
either. And I heard very difficult words from those that are the respondents to
these. They have said that they have found the process difficult. So I think
it's incumbent upon all of us to ensure that we do this properly as we move
forward and that we do reflect upon our Code of Conduct regularly.
I thank
those complainants for ensuring that societal change is taking place, in real
time, on this floor today by stepping up and saying that we should be held to a
different standard, a better standard and that we should all reflect upon that
as we move forward.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
I next
recognize the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Merciful Redeemer, pray for
us.
Mr.
Speaker, that daily prayer, along with the support of good people, province and
nation-wide, is what helped me survive this horrendous ordeal, which will go
down in history as the harassment scandal.
I
entered politics in 2007 and I can safely say that I was completely naive to the
reality of how politics actually works. To say that you need the skin of a
rhinoceros, sometimes seems to be a very mild understatement.
With the
advent of social media, the vitriol from the anonymous trolls can be very
disturbing, and the one place we should feel safe and comfortable is right here
in the hon. House of Assembly. In my own experience, however, the House of
Assembly can be a very intimidating place and the culture by historical
tradition is conducive to bullying, intimidation and pressure tactics to
conform. Over the years, I have felt these pressures, as I am sure almost every
politician has. However, the time has come to evolve legislatures to be more
accountable and more respectful. To this end, I feel it is very important that
we all strive to ensure the highest standards are upheld.
None of
us are perfect, Mr. Speaker, but I truly believe we should all be capable of
learning from our mistakes and mending the error of our ways.
Thursday, April 26, 2018 was perhaps the most atrocious day I have ever endured
in the House of Assembly. There was no time to think and it was quite chaotic.
Ever since I have thought long and hard about how to proceed from here, given
that the culture of politics does need to change, the rules do need to be obeyed
and they must be enforced, as well. It's pointless to have rules written on
paper, Mr. Speaker, if we don't practise them in action.
So to
that end, on May 28 of this year, I attended a meeting with the Commissioner for
Legislative Standards, along with a colleague, to submit a complaint about some
of my own experiences. My sole motivation was to acknowledge that a systemic
culture of bullying, intimidation and harassment permeates politics in general.
Regrettably, it is a culture that continues to be tolerated to this very day,
despite the Green report, Code of Conduct, respectful workplace policy and
movements such as MeToo, Press for Progress, respect her and Time's Up.
Mr.
Speaker, it's not fair to say that every person in politics is capable of this
type of behaviour, but there are some, and if I was to use an analogy it's like
one rotten apple ruins the barrel. I have to say that my time here in Opposition
has been phenomenal and my colleagues have been outstanding and certainly some
colleagues from across the way, outstanding. So, it's unfair that this situation
has tarred us all with the same brush, because that's really not the case, and
it is crucial that good people not be deterred by what is happening here in the
House of Assembly, because now more than ever we need good, strong people to
come forward.
If
there's one thing that the MeToo movement has taught me, it's that to deny to
acknowledge that a problem exists, is to be complicit in allowing it to
continue. I did not have any malicious intent or animus toward anyone, Mr.
Speaker. But I felt that I had a duty to do the right thing, and attest to my
own experience as an example of what that culture is like.
I
unequivocally did not come forward for political gain. In fact, I said to you
yourself when I was trying to decide how to handle my own specific situation,
that perhaps the Member really didn't know how he was treating me, like the
commercial on VOCM: He didn't know he was my bully. I was prepared at that time
for the benefit of the doubt, and I'm sure you recall that as well.
But I
would hope that this is not about politics for any of us here, Mr. Speaker. We
have a major responsibility, and the eyes of the nation are upon us to show true
leadership and accountability for our actions. But coming forward is not easy.
In fact,
if the Member for the Bay of Islands did not go on public TV at noon on
Thursday, April 26, and tell the media to ask me if I thought he was a bully, I
probably would not even be involved in this nightmare – which is what I've come
to refer to it as. But once he publicly stated my name and posed the question, I
was compelled to tell the truth about my own experiences. I had a duty.
If I had
lied that day and said: Oh, no, everything is just wonderful, Sir, with the way
you're treating me. Where would that have left my own honour and integrity?
Where would it have left my hon. colleagues who had taken, for the first time in
history, as far as I know, the courageous and brave step to come forward?
How
would I sleep in my own skin if I sacrificed my own values, knowing full well
that I had stated on record, in print via email, that I would come forward for
any Member of House? And, Mr. Speaker, this is the email that landed me in the
middle of all of this, and this is the email that the media wanted a copy of
that I referenced in my report.
It
reads, I quote – and I can table it as well. In the meantime – it's an email I
sent to someone, a minister of this House asking for assistance: In the
meantime, I am trusting that you will ensure that all Members of the Crown treat
all MHAs with decency and respect as per our Code of Conduct. You said you have
never seen me so upset, and you are correct. I'm so tired of women being treated
the way they are by a select few – and, again, I say that not all Members, Mr.
Speaker, should be tarred with the same brush because there are some very good
people here.
I am
ready to stand up. This is what I said, Mr. Speaker, and this is where I had to
be true to my own honour. I said: I am ready to stand up for us in the House of
Assembly if it becomes necessary – I had no idea, Mr. Speaker, how quickly that
time would come.
I closed
out my email by saying: I thank you for your time and attention, and trust you
will expect nothing less than fair and equitable treatment of all districts by
ministers of the Crown.
I wrote
that letter, Mr. Speaker, in October of 2017. It's no secret amongst us here, as
MHAs, that I had raised concerns about bullying and intimidation in the fall of
October 2017; quietly and privately, via emails to people who I felt could help
me at the time, and they did.
In the
wake of events unfolding, though, in the Liberal's own caucus the following
April, had I been cowardly and hid under a rock, I can guarantee you that
somewhere along the way the same email would've surfaced and been used against
me in an effort to try and attack my credibility. Because bare in mind, Mr.
Speaker, once something is in electronic form – and there were numerous paper
copies of it on the go at the time as well. I was very upset and consulted with
a large number of people about how to handle the situation at the time. And as
far as I knew, this email could turn up anywhere, anytime, with any kind of
spin.
So in
the spirit of full disclosure, I will tell you that I heavily considered
submitting a complaint last year. I spent three full days and nights writing up
every bullying experience that has ever happened to me. I then consulted with a
former MHA and mentor. I gave this person at that time, in October of 2017, a
copy of my draft complaint; but, ultimately, decided not to proceed – for
numerous reasons, Mr. Speaker.
And
chief among them, my husband is very, very worried about me. He feared that I
was heading for a mental breakdown. So after three days, he came in and he
looked at me – I hadn't moved from my computer except for three or four hours of
sleep per night. And he said: Are you going to do anything about it or are you
going to let it go? So I packed it up, Mr. Speaker, put it into a box and I hid
it away in my closet, and I didn't think about it anymore until the following
spring.
I will
quote the words of my mentor at the time. He said, and I quote: In my day, any
minister behaving like that would be fired without question, end quote. We're
not talking about yesterday, Mr. Speaker. This MHA served decades ago. When the
details of more bullying came to light, my mentor was the first one to call and
say: Tracey, you have to come forward.
So let
me assure you all that I had no malicious intent, but when the Member told the
media to go ask Tracey Perry, he immediately placed me in a position to rise to
my duty and obligations as a Member of the House of Assembly, namely, to be
truthful and honest. I could not be complicit and turn a blind eye to the fact
that we have a major problem with bullying. It would be against the Code of
Conduct for me to do anything but to tell the truth as I knew and felt it. I did
send letters of concern about the Member's behaviour toward me months earlier. I
did ask that such behaviour not be tolerated, and not just for me but for every
single one of my colleagues here in this hon. House.
I was in
shock from the minister having said to the media: Go ask Tracey Perry if I'm a
bully. In fact, everyone was shocked, so much so that the Legislature even shut
down for the rest of the day. I can tell you that on that day, in that moment,
here in this hon. House as I sat waiting Question Period and watching his
interview stream in on social media, I immediately felt like I was being further
intimidated to keep my mouth shut or else. The minister himself had effectively
backed me into a corner.
Mr.
Speaker, the video of that interview still exists on YouTube today. Mine was
there, too, for a while but it has miraculously disappeared. At around the
56-second mark, the Member clearly states: Go ask Tracey Perry. Then proceeded
to provide his version of events, including the statement: She chased me, and
I'm the bully?
The
Member continued to discuss me publicly in what I perceived as an attack on my
credibility. Later that same day, the evening news included a clip in which the
Member, in responding to a question about whether I had ever raised previous
concerns, replies: not a complaint, she wrote me to say she didn't like my
behaviour. And I note, Mr. Speaker, this is an admission that he was well aware
that I had concerns, despite claims to the contrary.
I also
bring to your attention, from that same news coverage, a quote from the MHA for
St. John's Centre, who I thank profusely for her support and who has certainly
helped me be strong throughout all of this, who stated that it is a tactic of
extreme intimidation by publicly naming the women who have complaints against
him. And I concur with that statement, Mr. Speaker, because I felt it.
While
the Member likes to accuse me of playing politics, the fact of the matter is
that in exact contrast to the Member's false accusation, I refused to come
forward – not until the Member himself went before the TV cameras at noon and
publicly stated, am I a bully, go ask Tracey Perry.
Then and
there, I had a predicament and a decision to make fast. Would I stand up and be
counted, or would I sit cowardly by while the abuse continued?
It's a
strange thing for a politician to say, I know, but I really don't like the
spotlight. I might have when I was younger, but not now, not at all, and I think
our own legislative reporters can confirm I'm pretty good at running away from
them. But I had a clear sense of duty to stand up and do the right thing. To
stay silent would be failing all of those who look up to us for leadership in
making their own lives better.
When it
comes to standing up for what we believe in, just how fortunate are we? In other
countries people get killed for that. Let that sink in for a moment. How
fortunate are we.
By 3
o'clock that day on April 26, my head was swirling and I was feeling some
pressure. The media wanted to interview me, and I was getting lots of advice:
file a complaint; don't file a complaint; just tell the truth; be careful, there
will be repercussions. I really didn't know how I was going to respond. I was
clear that I wanted the culture we were working in and the behaviours I was
experiencing to stop. I can safely say that had I known what was to unfold once
I publicly stated that I would file a complaint, I don't know if I would have
done it, Mr. Speaker. And to this day I really am not sure if I have confidence
that we are free from repercussions, and I hope I'm proven wrong on that.
With
regard to the problems I was having, I felt, and still do feel, that others have
gone through far worse. I've heard stories that are far worse than mine from all
around the world of sexual harassment, financial corruption and physical abuse.
In my own opinion, my ordeal is not of this serious scope; however, none of us
should diminish the impacts of bullying and intimidation either, and it was
never my intent to do so.
I
believe, having gone through this experience, now more than ever that we need a
proper day-to-day mechanism to deal with workplace harassment issues for the
Legislature, and I am pleased that the Privileges and Elections Committee have
commenced their work.
That
being said, in the spirit of complete honesty, I must confess that with regard
to my own submission, on the advice of people I greatly respect, I significantly
downplayed the full negativity of my own experience. Admittedly, I did take a
softer approach, or more kind and gentle if you will, than perhaps I should've,
had I relayed the full truth of my entire hardships and fully elaborated on what
I went through.
That
happened, Mr. Speaker, because I witnessed what happened to the Member for Terra
Nova, in part, as well. We all expressed concerns at the time about
confidentiality, and regrettably my fears regarding the lack of confidentiality
in the process were validated. But I can assure you that we all share this in
common, no doubt, no one wants to open The
Telegram and read about their own personal turmoil and hardships on the
front page.
Mr.
Speaker, I, too, like to think of myself as a strong person, as a tough girl,
and when you have to tell the story of being bullied, you have to admit to your
weaknesses. If someone is bullying you, they can take advantage of that, too. So
there was a lot of consideration that went into how much I actually included in
my submission. Unfortunately, it would come back to haunt me, but I was, at the
time, proceeding in good faith, all alone and without legal counsel, other than
what I received from here in the House.
But
these last few months have been incredibly difficult. I personally believe that
we were directed to the wrong approach for addressing the issue at hand. It has
caused far too much hardship and duress on the complainants, the respondents and
all of our constituents, friends and families, our spouses in particular. My
poor husband is far more stressed about all of this than I am even.
Mr.
Speaker, I get emails, even as recently as within the last two weeks, from
professionals who express concern for my safety. These are not easy times, not
for any of us. And again, in the spirit of full disclosure, I don't mind saying
that I had some tough times. This summer, there were days that I worked hard to
get up out of bed, put one foot in front of the other and face the day. But,
with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I think that the respondents have had many
hard days as well. None of us should have been put through this in the manner in
which it took place. It's been hard on everyone. The process was nothing like
anything I had ever anticipated. I was a part of it and I still don't understand
it.
So, I
truly wish it never unfolded in this manner, but what I am proud of is that we
are leading the way and standing up to say that we want, and need, to make
things better. The nation is watching and collectively, as an hon. House of the
British Commonwealth, we must deliver.
But the
duress has been very hard to take. In fact, for a while, Mr. Speaker, I became
frightened to death to talk to anyone, wondering what in the heck was really
going on, not knowing who to trust, and feeling that all too familiar stab in
the back by those seeking political favour so they throw you under the bus.
That, Mr. Speaker, is one of the unwritten rules and, if time permits, I'll talk
about those a bit later.
All the
while, to tell you the truth, I was wishing I was nowhere near this, anywhere
near it with a 10-foot pole. In fact, sometimes I wondered if I'll trust anyone
for anything anymore. But, we can't be like that, Mr. Speaker. Again, because of
the strength of the people of this province and my hon. colleagues, I don't feel
like that now because we cannot live with the feeling of dejection that the
system doesn't work. We have to be strong, Mr. Speaker, and we have to show
leadership so that others in our province enduring these types of hardships know
that they will be supported.
I have
grave concerns really about this whole situation. I think the way it was
handled, thus far, has brought disrepute to our hon. people's House and to
ourselves as MHAs. I do know that all the events included in my submission that
occurred outside of the floor of the House, for some reason didn't get included
in the investigation. I'm not sure why because my investigation wrapped up
abruptly. I thought there was another two weeks left. My lawyer and I were in
the process of trying to finalize some information, but I got notice that the
House was reopening and my report was done, so we never got to that stage. But
in fairness to the Commissioner, I do feel sorry for him as well. He expressed
yesterday certainly how hard it has been on him. It's been an incredibly
challenging task, I'm sure, for each and every one of us here.
The
process we undertook was terrible. To this day, I still don't know the mandate
that was being followed by the investigator, despite asking for it many times. I
believe the process was unfair to complainants and respondents. A concern at the
time and still today is that the Code of Conduct does not really address
workplace harassment and bullying. It does not define what is acceptable
behaviour and what is not.
In
regard to the systemic issues, which in my humble opinion, everyone believes
exist in politics, all I ever wanted was a recommendation for better policies, a
more clearly defined Code of Conduct when it comes to harassment and stronger
legislation.
With
respect to my relationship with the minister, all I ever wanted was a resolution
to the fact that he was and continues to this day to disrespect me by refusing
to speak with me, the people's MHA, which I feel makes it very difficult for me
to properly do my job and advocate on their behalf, especially as a rural MHA
and the Department of Municipal Affairs is one that we rely on very heavily in
rural Newfoundland and Labrador. It would be very upsetting for my constituents
to know that the minister of Municipal Affairs refused to speak to me, and they
do know that now, and I have their full support in speaking up and I thank them
all immensely for that.
If
anyone has ever tried to prove bullying on paper, it's an almost impossible
task. One of the challenges is that witnesses who often fear for their own jobs,
or repercussions against them, tend to have miraculous memory loss. Another is
that politicians cover their tracks, careful not to leave a paper trail. Yet
sadly, Mr. Speaker, not everyone tells the truth or relays it in the full
context of the whole story.
Furthermore, I was undertaking this all alone with no legal counsel. So, Mr.
Speaker, I will say for the record that I stand by my recollection of events and
suggest that the witness accounts that did somehow make it to the report do not
account for a complete or accurate story when relayed in its proper context.
Unfortunately, by the time I retained a lawyer to deal with the accusations made
toward me, we were not permitted to cross-examine them or secure their testimony
under oath. Some of the other concerns I've had with the process would be
impartiality of witnesses and corroboration, Mr. Speaker.
Those of
us on the receiving end of bullying and intimidation know the mental anguish
that it brings, but I have to say, after having gone through this process, that
I haven't fully decided, if someone came to me to say should I go forward with a
complaint, if I would encourage them or if I would be reluctant to encourage
them because it has been brutal. It brings on even more anxiety. I naively
entered this process believing that we could be confident there would be no
repercussions, and I remain ever hopeful that that's the case, Mr. Speaker, but,
again, I don't know if I'm fully confident yet.
I will
say it again: None of us should have been put through this. Mr. Speaker, this
process was not the right one for rectifying the problem we have at hand. I
truly believe, despite the findings, that the very fact we are here in this
situation with numerous similar issues says something is very, very wrong and we
need to fix it. We have come this far; to stop now would be to fail those who
rely on us to make life better for them.
So, Mr.
Speaker, it looks like I have some time left on the clock. So I'm going to talk
a bit about the unwritten rules. One of the things happening as a result of the
harassment debate is that the public is getting a real close look at the inner
workings of politics, up close and personal. Mr. Speaker, we all see what goes
on here from day to day, but as politicians we don't often acknowledge ourselves
how bad it can really be. It's one of the unwritten rules that we must abide by
if we want to get funding for our districts or have ministers agree to have
meetings with constituents.
Of all
the workplaces I've ever had, politics is by far the worst for enabling bullies
to proliferate, and abusive power is rarely reported. There are a lot of
complicated reasons for that: fear of reprisal; party above the people; the gut
feeling that nothing is going to be done about it anyway are among these
reasons. It's a culture, politics, unlike anything you would possibly ever
expect it to be, unless you actually live it.
The 2007
Green report was developed in response to the financial spending scandal. The
Code of Conduct was passed, and a new Accountability, Integrity and
Administration Act was proclaimed; yet, the unwritten rules remain the same.
What we
are doing here today is not about how things have been done in the past, but
about what is acceptable today and in the future. I came forward out of a sense
of duty to improve this workplace, and I won't be bullied or intimidated into
silence, now, having come this far.
Mr.
Speaker, I would venture to say that our longest serving Members know the game
of the unwritten rules better than most of us, and it hurts me that the rookies
are being trained in this old style of politics, in spite of the 2007 Green
report.
During
the time that I was preparing my submission, I happened to be reading a
political memoir written by Beaton Tulk, a man I greatly respect, entitled
A Man of My Word. It is, indeed,
fascinating to read political memoirs and, oftentimes, there are hints to the
unwritten rules. An example of this is found in paragraph 6, page 76 of his
book, which states – and I quote – another thing you have to remember in
Opposition is that you are not going to get as much as you should for your
constituents. That is not the way it should be. That's just the way it is – end
quote.
I do not
accept that, Mr. Speaker, and the Green report actually outlawed it. My
constituents and those in each and every single district across this fine
province are equally deserving of public investment and funding. Vendettas and
vindictiveness have no place in the people's House and the people's business;
nor does propping up a district that might be at risk in the next election with
taxpayers' money. These are some of the reasons our province is in such a mess.
You couple of it decades of cronyism and you have the state of affairs we have
today.
The 2007
Green report may be somewhat silent on bullying and harassment, but it does
speak clearly to this type of abuse. Such pressure tactics are not only used
against Opposition Members, they're often used as a weapon within one's own
caucus as punishment if you refuse to toe the line on something. That's politics
as it always was, folks, and that continues to be how politics is done today.
But how we act now, in light of this harassment scandal, will decide the
politics of tomorrow.
Mr.
Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Member for Placentia
- St. Mary's for her exemplary leadership and inspiration throughout this
ordeal. The courage she has shown in defying political pressure from a fellow
minister to do something that she felt was wrong is an example for us all. She
may sit in another party, but there are times in this hon. House when we must
rise above party lines in the best interests of our people. In my humble
opinion, she is deserving of accolades and a place in history for reshaping how
politics is done in this province, and I have the greatest of respect and
admiration for this hero who is charting new territory.
I also
want to thank Equal Voice for meeting with us and providing much needed guidance
and support; as well as the former minister Responsible for the Status of Women,
Ms. Cathy Bennett, for taking her responsibility seriously, and for her courage
in speaking out about problems such as gaslighting. I was very shocked and
saddened that she left, but I do understand it.
Indeed,
I thank all of my colleagues, including the Members for Harbour Grace - Port de
Grave and Terra Nova, and everyone who stood up and spoke in support of us, Mr.
Speaker, everyone who stood up to be counted, to be truthful and acknowledge
that a real problem exists here; including our current Minister of Natural
Resources and Minister Responsible for the Status of Women. Your support is
invaluable and it really means a lot.
The fact
that it has gone on for all time, Mr. Speaker, doesn't make it right. You often
hear, well, it was done before, it was done before. It doesn't make it right. At
some point we stand up and say we're going to do it differently and we're going
to be accountable. We need to attract skilled and knowledgeable people to the
House of Assembly if we are going to provide a future for our children and
grandchildren, and we won't do it if they do not have confidence that this is a
professional environment.
Mr.
Speaker, I also want to thank the hundreds of people from all across this
province and nation who took the time to call or send personal emails of
encouragement and to share their own stories. There are some harrowing stories
out there of people's experiences. Some who have come forward, and some who hold
it in because of their fears of repercussions in coming forward.
This is
an issue that affects people in every workplace everywhere, and we, as leaders
of the province and of the people, are being looked to now to provide guidance
and leadership and stronger legislation so that each and every person in every
profession and occupation can rest assured they do not have to live and work in
an environment of bullying and intimidation.
So,
respectfully, I stand here in my place and speak truth to power in an effort to
help find a way to improve the rules of politics, including the unwritten rules,
which to me are the real root of the problem. I strongly believe, as do many
others, there is no place for old style politics in the twenty-first century.
Mr.
Speaker, I would say that if the truth be told, perhaps every single
parliamentarian could relay a story or two about their own negative experiences.
So it is important, very important that we continue to raise it until the
behaviours have actually stopped. The lip service must end and action must
start, because here in the House of Assembly where laws are made and governance
is executed, we must set the highest example. I hope this marks a turning point.
I look
forward to hearing and working with my colleagues as we begin to restore honour
to our people's House. And, Mr. Speaker, I rest assured that together we can
create a better day.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
I next recognize the Member
for Humber - Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I heard
the Member, and I'm sure she got anxiety. I apologize, if anybody out there
listening never heard my side of the story, thinking that I caused all that
anxiety. Mr. Speaker, this is the issue.
Even
you, Mr. Speaker, my rights – when I said: Will you confirm what was said in
that meeting? You had five, six, seven hours to confirm what was said in the
meeting before the vote and I never got it. So it's easy for me to be the
punching bag here tonight, and the last seven months. Just think about what I
went through.
I'll
just tell the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune, I heard your speech and
I'll go through your complaints. I am going to defend myself. Do you know how
your name came up that day, April 26?
MR. SPEAKER:
Again, I remind the Member to
address the remarks to the Speaker.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune's name got up, it was after the
meeting April 11 that myself and the Minister of Service NL, Mr. Speaker, after
she leaked it to the media, the media contacted her April 11. She confirmed,
yes, I had a concern with Eddie Joyce. That's how it got out. It wasn't me. It
was leaked again by the minister to the media who contacted her. That's in her
report. That's right here in her report, and I'm getting blamed for leaking her
name.
What I
said to the media, Mr. Speaker, is that, yeah, we had a disagreement over CEEP.
She never filed any harassment complaint. That's what I said, and we did have a
disagreement over CEEP. That's exactly what I said, but this idea that I put her
name out there after she confirmed to the media – and I asked, you're worry
about your name getting out, how did Paul Davis find out about the meeting with
the Premier on Wednesday? How did he find out? Only three people knew. Did
anybody ever ask that question?
Now when
you get the code names in the phones, they're hiding something. Did anybody find
out about when it was leaked that – when Dale Kirby put out that email whoever
is leaking stuff to Paul Davis, why don't you leave. Did it ever get out that –
do you know who reported that? Fred Hutton. There's a code name in someone's
phone for Fred Hutton. Do you ever think about us as respondents, what we went
through because everything was out in the media?
Somewhere along the line, because you can stand up and say – and I'll go through
that incident on October 19. I remember it well, Mr. Speaker, I remember it
well. The Member walked over and asked for CEEP funding. And I said, and we all
– ask any Member in this House if I said anything different. Put it in writing
what you need, how many people you need, and the hours. I said it. I said it
about five or six times.
Mr.
Speaker, I got up out of my chair, I walked – I was sitting where the Minister
of Health is at. I walked, she followed me. The Member for Lab West was there.
He came as a witness and said, yes, she did.
Now,
according to her statement, I slammed down my computer. I walked to the back,
sat next to him and made statements, and I tried to belittle her. Which never
happened, it just never happened. Then the Member for Torngat Mountains was
another witness. He heard me say four, five, six times, put it in writing – as I
was walking away. I was the one walking away. That's about eight, 10 times.
I made a
right-hand turn. The Member for Harbour Main actually grabbed my jacket. The
Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune actually grabbed my jacket – but I'm the
bully. The Member for Harbour Main said leave the man alone, go back to the
other side. That was the Member; yet, because it's said that don't mean it's
true, and all this bullying and harassment – but I kept going out through the
door.
The
Member for Stephenville - Port au Port counted 11 times when I was at the door.
His statement, 11 times at that door I turned to the Member and I said: Please
put it in writing, please put it in writing; 11 times that he counted. That's
five witnesses saying I did not slam my computer down, that I did not belittle
her.
Mr.
Speaker, just for the record, last year the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La
Hune, she put it in writing two days later, sent me smiley faces and all that
after. Mr. Speaker, just to let you know that the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape
La Hune last year got more money than she ever got ever since the years before.
She got that $100,000 once she put it in writing and explained it. She got more
money last year than in her own documentation that she put in, yet I'm a bully.
Then in
April – April 4, I think it was – she sent another note. Can I get some more? I
said, oh, not a problem. She said I'm ever go grateful, smiley faces. But I'm a
bully. It just never happened. That just never …
I ask
the Member for Cape St. Francis – if he gives me permission – the time I showed
you that email when you were up to my office.
MR. SPEAKER:
Again, I remind the Member to
address your remarks to the Speaker.
MR. JOYCE:
Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm just
saying the Member for Cape St. Francis was up in my office and I showed him that
email. Why don't he stand up and say what he said that day? It's pretty
derogatory. Stand up and say it.
MR. SPEAKER:
Again, Sir, I remind you –
MR. JOYCE:
But he won't do it, and I
won't –
MR. SPEAKER:
– use the third person when
you're referring to other Members of the House.
MR. JOYCE:
I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. Okay.
I'll
just say, Mr. Speaker, I won't divulge because it's confidence in a private
conversation. When I have a private conversation I won't do it, but I can tell
you, when he seen that email the comments weren't very nice, and it wasn't about
me.
Do you
know the other complaint about me? Do you know the other complaint about
bullying and harassing? Do you know what it is? When she sent me that email,
October 19 of last year, I said you got to apologize. I'm not letting that – and
Christmas, I wouldn't shake her hand. That's one of the complaints, I wouldn't
shake her hand? That's one of the complaints against me. It went across Canada
that I'm a bully because I wouldn't shake someone's hand.
I mean,
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands would be putting a complaint in every
day for me. But that is one of the complaints. Can you imagine? Do you know the
other complaint – and I ask anybody to look at your computers if you want to. Do
you know the other complaint is that I was glaring that night; I was glaring at
her. When my seat with the Minister of Health, her seat was back there where the
Member for Cape St. Francis is sitting. I was glaring, for 10 minutes I was
glaring at her. Do you know what evidence I produced but it was never, ever put
in the report? Do you know the evidence I produced against that?
The last
speaker of the House that night, on October 19 – well, the second last at the
time. The second last speaker was Paul Davis. He spoke for nine minutes. Do you
know who sat behind Paul Davis? The Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune. And I
actually got the screen shot, when he started, when he finished and her seat
over to the side.
But that
was one of the complaints; that I glared because I was looking at Paul Davis
speaking. And that went across Canada. So I'm supposed to stand here and say
there's bullying and harassment happening in this House and I'm a big part of
it.
I ask
either one of the Members, the Opposition Members I dealt with: How many times
did I give you a heads-up? Talking about you weren't treated fair, how many
times did I give you a heads-up on capital works? Actually give you the list and
say, what's your priorities?
I ask
the Member for Cape St. Francis, the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune also,
I did that. I did it. At our office over in Municipal Affairs and Environment,
one rule: treat everybody the same; everybody got treated the same. So to stand
up here and say that for some reason: oh, you're in Opposition you don't get it.
It's just not true.
And not
only that, the person then over at (inaudible) at the time had a personal
relationship with her. They were in contact Fridays, Saturdays, texting each
other. And to say you're not treating me right, and you had direct access to the
office and all of the other things?
How
about the comments she made to a staff member two weeks ago, is that all right?
Is that all right, and the comment she made, if I don't get what I want. The
same thing she did to me, by the way. The same thing she did to me. If I don't
get what I want, I guess I have to go to the Premier's office – the same thing.
It was
over $60,000 that a town – and then I wrote six or seven times, and I know the
Member for Lab West is aware of it. It was over funding down there that we
couldn't break because they went out of the scope of the work. Right in her own
statements: I never got the answer I needed, so I had to go to the Premier's
office. Then she started on me. That's where it all came from.
So this
idea that I intentionally was shouting at her, or doing something to her, is
just not true. I can't let it stand. I just can't let it stand.
When you
hear all the bullying and harassment, just remember, there wasn't one complaint
of bullying and harassment that had any foundation. So if I'm bullying and
harassing someone – about five witnesses said it's not true, it never happened;
yet, when you stand up here you pretend as if it did happen.
The same
thing with the Member for Cape St. Francis saying I wouldn't shake her hand.
That's true. I never, because I asked her to apologize because I did nothing
wrong and I had witnesses to show. Now, am I going to file a complaint tomorrow
saying, okay, you grabbed my jacket and that's being physically accosted? I'm
not going to do that. I wasn't threatened by that. I was annoyed by it.
Do you
know one thing about all this here? Not one person said I raised my voice or
nothing – said I slammed down the computer, which just never happened.
Mr.
Speaker, when you go through a few of the other things that's here, it said I
butted in a conversation. The Member for Corner Brook said, I don't know what
you're talking about, that never happened. In this here, how I was rude, walked
in and butted in this conversation. In fact, the Member for Corner Brook said it
just never happened, because it never happened.
That
April 26, April 25 – it started on April 11 when it got leaked to the media and
the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune was contacted, okay, let's start a
frenzy now. It went out April 25, and for some reason it got from the Premier's
office to the floor of the House of Assembly. Someone had to leak it. It got on
the floor of the House of Assembly and then the frenzy started. Our names were
out there, dismissed from Cabinet because of these allegations that came from
the eighth floor to the floor of the House of Assembly – no foundation.
Like I
said before, do you know when these complaints were put in? April 26 standing
up. April 26, I'm ready with the complaint. Do you know when they put it in?
Three months later. Can you imagine living three months and you're supposed to
have complaints against you and not one against you? Can you imagine what it's
like for your family? Just think about it.
All on a
frenzy. It all started on April 25 in a meeting in the morning, and then it got
on the House of Assembly floor. And when Dale Kirby, the Member for Mount Scio –
MR. SPEAKER:
I remind the Member to not
use the names of (inaudible) by district.
MR. JOYCE:
Sorry, yes.
And when
he sent the text: Whoever is leaking stuff to Paul Davis, why don't you leave?
So then I find out, through information, that I had to sign a confidentiality
agreement that if I don't sign it – that I never get it, and when I wouldn't
sign it because I refused to sign it, going to be take it to court, we found out
there were codenames for the Member of Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune hiding stuff.
So how
would you believe – how would you think? I ask anybody out there in the general
public who's listening: Seven months of my life, and when you finally get the
information that you got, one was: We knew Paul Davis was getting the
information. And because I couldn't get it and I almost had to go to court to
get it, you find out a codename was for the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La
Hune from the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's.
Now,
what would you think? And then the other one that I know happened. She had a
codename for Fred Hutton, and who leaked my name that day? Fred Hutton. Who
leaked the thing about Dale Kirby, the Member for Mount Scio, at 8:20 with that
email? Fred Hutton.
I'm just
saying, when you put it all together, and then you look at all the reports, if
you ever put them together, well, I was a junior minister and he was a senior
minister. That's in two of the reports – two of the Members. If you coordinate
what's in it, yes, that's in one. Yes, that's in this one. So, the question for
me: Was there any coordination? Was this planned? Because when you read the –
I'm serious. I am dead serious.
What I
went through the last seven months, and when you get all the reports and you
read it, and the same material is in it, and I remember the Member for Terra
Nova saying: I should've listened to my colleagues. I should've have put much in
it. I mean, just think about it. I had to stand here tonight to apologize for
something I never did. I only did it because I respect the House, by the way.
I always
said I respect the House of Assembly, but at no time did I really feel that the
incidents that I did caused the seven months of stress and strain for everybody.
People out around still think that we should be doing the government business. I
have no problem with that, and we probably should be. But, Mr. Speaker, just get
this in closing, because I was telling the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La
Hune: At no time did I ever, ever, ever intentionally bully or intimidate you.
It just never happened, Mr. Speaker.
Witnesses proved it never happened. Staff over in our office proved it never
happened. The Member for Cape St. Francis knew it never happened, and if he
wants to pass on the comments that he made to me that day, he can. But he knows
it never happened. Mr. Speaker, just think – and I'm convinced that the stuff
was leaked to the Opposition; stuff was leaked to the media. There's stuff
coordinated in the reports, and all I had to do was say I apologize.
Seven
months of your life for that? Seven months? And for the Member for Placentia -
St. Mary's put out that my personal finances, they got to be in order. In that
Code – and we know, the people that have been around, know that years ago if you
were bankrupt, you couldn't sit in the House of Assembly. That's what that
means, that your personal finances aren't in order. I had to go prove that. I
had to go prove that. And I'm supposed to say, oh, let's hug and make up?
Dragging your family through that. Seriously?
So when
I said I would never sit with the Member again in caucus or Cabinet, that's why.
It's not me. I fight with everybody in politics. We fight all the time. We
fight; that's part of it. We sit down and we have a laugh. We fight, but at the
end of the day we shake hands. We might say, let's go get a meal. You got to
fight for your district. You got to. If you don't fight for your district, you
shouldn't be in here. If you don't fight for your constituents, you shouldn't be
in here – you shouldn't be in here.
If you
don't know how to sit down there and sometimes work with stuff and then some
other times sit down and have a serious discussions and sometimes – but the
whole thing, I can honestly say there's not a Member here that I ever
intentionally did anything to. Never, except help – except help.
I
remember the Minister of Service NL driving a Sunday and they had a water supply
– I spent all day Sunday getting that straightened up – all day. I'd do it for
anybody, and I did. And I know the Members opposite, I know the Member for Cape
St. Francis, he would stand up. The Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune, if
she wanted to, she could stand up and say I used to give her the sheets to do
stuff. So this idea that Eddie Joyce was some bully to everybody, it's just not
true.
So when
I say to the Member – and I honestly believe this – when you drag your family
and then you have to prove that you're not financially bankrupt, it's personal.
It's not politics; it's personal. And when I had to do that, I cannot put me or
my family, with those statements, through this again. I'd rather stay as an
independent just for the sake of my family (inaudible).
So, Mr.
Speaker, I'll close on that, but I can tell you, and I'll say it quite honestly,
I am of the firm belief, Sir, the firm belief this was coordinated, this was
planned, the information was leaked to the Opposition, and all the reports were
coordinated because it was a frenzy to get Eddie Joyce. With the Member who said
it to the mayor on March 20, I'm giving Eddie Joyce some smack upside the head.
You got me. You gave me some smack upside the head, and you got a few people to
jump in with you.
I tell
the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune, at no time – at no time, I say to the
Member – did I ever raise my voice to her, did I ever do anything. Even with the
floods, even with the fire down there, we went down together. She was treated
with respect down there. She was praised up down there. I praised her up down
there about the hard work that she's doing and all that. In the media reports, I
even put in the media reports where I actually praised her up down there in her
hometown – actually praised her up – which she did do a lot of work down there
at that time. She was down there and she was really concerned, and should have
been praised up for it.
At no
time can anybody show me a comment where I made a derogatory statement towards
the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune or the Member for Placentia - St.
Mary's. It just never happened.
So when
you see me going through seven months of what we went through with the family
and you wonder why it's hard for me to sit with the Member for Placentia - St.
Mary's – I mean, I'll use again some of the Members here. Yeah, we had some
frank discussions, I agree, but name one thing that any of us – any of us – ever
did personally to each other, if we ever seen anybody at a function that we
treated with disrespect. It just doesn't happen.
You
might have your discussions in here, but if you see someone on their home turf –
like, I'm a firm believer in sports. It's that you don't embarrass someone on
their home field. It just never happened.
So I
just want to close on that and I have a stand on principle on that. I do wish
the government well and I'm a big part of it and I always said I was. But, Mr.
Speaker, on principle, I cannot put my family through it anymore.
Mr.
Speaker, I say to everybody, if there's more, if there's policies being put in
place, I'm all for it. If there are ways to improve it, all for it. But please,
please don't let things be leaked out from one of your side to the Opposition to
have you six months out in the public all across Canada, to be put down as a big
bully, the big harassment and everybody in a frenzy when there was absolutely no
foundation. Nothing was ever found with bullying and harassment after six
months, Mr. Speaker, but it was leaked out, it was coordinated to be leaked out
and I wasn't – and I'll say to the Member for –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Member's time has expired.
Thank
you.
MR. JOYCE:
I'll just clue up, Mr.
Speaker. I'll just say to the Member for Cape St. Francis –
MR. SPEAKER:
No, your time has expired.
MR. JOYCE:
– it was a good smack you
gave me.
MR. SPEAKER:
I ask you to take your seat.
Thank
you.
Are
there any more speakers to the motion?
The hon.
the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, briefly, I
suspect the government is going to have to offer premium pay for whoever it is
takes on training in respect to the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands. I want
to briefly –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
You
guys, we're not going to start. Civility – let's finish this up.
The hon.
the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
The best way to get at the
truth is not to ask questions but to just listen to somebody speak.
So, Mr.
Speaker, we find ourselves in the position of not being able to support the
resolution due to defects in the process. These are outlined in a letter that my
colleague, the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune, delivered to your office
today. I'll just briefly highlight some of the aspects of the process with which
give rise to – well frankly, give rise to a perception amongst many of us,
including the hon. Premier, that the process before us was flawed.
So, in
respect to my colleague, among her complaints about the process are the fact
that she was unable to ascertain from the Commissioner what the process was to
be that he would follow in order to deliver a report, and also how
confidentiality was to be maintained.
She
wrote the Commissioner on May 29 requesting information about the process and
the maintenance of confidentiality and did not receive a response from the
Commissioner. She eventually retained counsel who made a written inquiry as to
whether the process to be followed was adversarial in nature or inquisitorial.
So, the difference there is – and I'm quoting from a letter of her lawyer –
whether it is incumbent upon her – that's the complainant – to obtain statements
from witnesses to the harassment and/or bullying of which she complains, or
whether your office will be seeking out this information. That process never was
clarified.
Finally,
and outstandingly, my colleague went along, and her counsel, in the belief,
which was encouraged by the Commissioner, that she would have an opportunity to
be present at an interview with her legal counsel at which the case being
provided by the respondent would be made fully known to her, and she would be
given an opportunity to respond before the report was finalized. This
opportunity was offered one day and basically withdrawn the next by the making
available of the finalized report. In other words, short notice to my colleague
of any opportunity to make reply to what the Commissioner was considering as
being his finding.
So,
these matters are outlined at greater length in the letter which your office now
has, and this letter summarizes many of the concerns that lead many of us,
including the Premier, to feel that the process was flawed. And those are some
of the reasons why we find ourselves unable to support the motion.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Any
further speakers to the motion, Motion 6?
Seeing
no further speakers, is the House read for the question?
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Division.
MR. SPEAKER:
Division has been called.
I am
confirming with the House Leaders everyone's here.
Division
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
On
Motion 6, all those in favour of the motion, please rise.
CLERK:
Mr. Ball, Ms. Coady, Mr.
Haggie, Ms. Dempster, Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Osborne, Mr. Mitchelmore, Ms.
Gambin-Walsh, Mr. Warr, Mr. Davis, Ms. Haley, Mr. Letto, Mr. Browne, Mr. Bragg,
Mr. Finn, Mr. Reid, Ms. Parsley, Mr. King, Mr. Dean, Ms. Pam Parsons, Mr.
Holloway, Ms. Rogers, Ms. Michael, Mr. Lane.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against the motion,
please rise.
CLERK:
Mr. Crosbie, Mr. Brazil, Ms.
Perry, Mr. Kevin Parsons, Mr. Petten, Mr. Lester.
Mr.
Speaker, the ayes, 24, the nays, six.
MR. SPEAKER:
Motion 6 is carried.
The hon.
the Deputy Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Health and Community Services, that the House do now
adjourn for the day.
MR. SPEAKER:
It has been moved and
seconded that this House do now adjourn.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
This
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 o'clock.
On
motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 10 a.m.